If...(and its a big 'if')...the House passes Articles of Impeachment, there is NO WAY that Mitch McConnell will allow a trial to proceed in the Senate. He'll come up with some bullshit reason, just like he did with Merrick Garland, and stonewall it.brian wrote: ↑Thu May 23, 2019 1:41 pm So in your expert political opinion, what happens after impeachment? If the House impeaches him next week and the Senate then acquits him which is obviously how it's gonna play out, how does that make Trump weaker and reduce his chances of winning re-election? There's no wrong answers here. I'm legitimately curious.
Trump Admin Meltdown Thread Part III - A Democratic House
Moderators: Shirley, Sabo, brian, rass, DaveInSeattle
- DaveInSeattle
- The Dude
- Posts: 8506
- Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2013 5:51 am
- Location: Seattle, WA
Re: Trump Admin Meltdown Thread Part III - A Democratic House
Re: Trump Admin Meltdown Thread Part III - A Democratic House
With no disrespect intended we obviously know all that. The real question is how does the impeachment process benefit (or not) the Democratic Party. All snark aside, that’s a healthy and open debate. This is uncharted territory here so there are no “experts”. Not here and not in the House of Representatives. Either option (impeach or don’t impeach) could backfire in the end.
Bandwagon fan of the 2023 STANLEY CUP CHAMPIONS!
Re: Trump Admin Meltdown Thread Part III - A Democratic House
Everyone knows the senate is going to protect him, now or a year ago or a year from now, so stop chasing (and hiding behind) this mythical gotcha that doesn’t and will never exist. Framing it as “how does this benefit the party” admits the concern is how Trump is hurting the party, not the absolute disaster Trump is for the country, especially the vulnerable, and established rule of law. Refusing to act isn’t strategy, it’s kowtowing at best and subservience at worst.
Re: Trump Admin Meltdown Thread Part III - A Democratic House
I hate all that but I don’t give a single shit about it if the process of impeachment somehow ends up benefitting Trump. And knowing how fucking stupid this country is you just can’t dismiss that possibility.
Bandwagon fan of the 2023 STANLEY CUP CHAMPIONS!
Re: Trump Admin Meltdown Thread Part III - A Democratic House
I want to be clear — I’m 100 percent pro-impeachment. Let’s get that shit out of the way. But I don’t give a shit about THAT if it backfires. If I’m needlessly playing devil’s advocate I apologize but I don’t think it’s a 90 percent positive for impeachment that would justify the “risk” from a game theory standpoint. I think it’s closer to 55-45.
Bandwagon fan of the 2023 STANLEY CUP CHAMPIONS!
Re: Trump Admin Meltdown Thread Part III - A Democratic House
My case - such as it is - is that the prudent move is to dig dig dig to try and get that to the 65 percent or so that would legitimately make it the no-doubt play.
Bandwagon fan of the 2023 STANLEY CUP CHAMPIONS!
Re: Trump Admin Meltdown Thread Part III - A Democratic House
I think we’re past the point, and have been since the detention camps at the southern border started, where game theory is a factor. It’s an objective right and wrong. You have sufficient cause and you have independent sufficient reason.
Re: Trump Admin Meltdown Thread Part III - A Democratic House
And the no doubt play doesn’t exist unless you’re banking on losing the election but winning the senate in 2020.
Re: Trump Admin Meltdown Thread Part III - A Democratic House
Winning the presidency is all that matters in 2020. RBG will not be alive in 2023. If Trump wins in 2020 the republic is probably lost. Game theory is all that matters right now.
Bandwagon fan of the 2023 STANLEY CUP CHAMPIONS!
Re: Trump Admin Meltdown Thread Part III - A Democratic House
The idea that 2020 hinges on hiding until the election is rooted in nothing. Are you rallying a base by standing by as sometimes-sarcastic witnesses?
Re: Trump Admin Meltdown Thread Part III - A Democratic House
This would actually be the best result. Have an investigation that puts out all the nefarious shit he did, come to an iron-clad agreement that not even the 10-20 % in the middle can look past Trump's shittiness, and when McConnell stonewalls, attack the shit out of the GOP. Hammer the fuck out of the GOP starting fucking yesterday as the party that acquiesed children being put in fucking cages.DaveInSeattle wrote: ↑Thu May 23, 2019 8:46 pmIf...(and its a big 'if')...the House passes Articles of Impeachment, there is NO WAY that Mitch McConnell will allow a trial to proceed in the Senate. He'll come up with some bullshit reason, just like he did with Merrick Garland, and stonewall it.brian wrote: ↑Thu May 23, 2019 1:41 pm So in your expert political opinion, what happens after impeachment? If the House impeaches him next week and the Senate then acquits him which is obviously how it's gonna play out, how does that make Trump weaker and reduce his chances of winning re-election? There's no wrong answers here. I'm legitimately curious.
Hell, if I was still living in a house and not a condo now I'd blow up a big picture of a kid in a cage and caption it with "The GOP's Doing". They do the same thing with fetal parts. Fighting the Joker with Batman as someone noted several pages ago.
My avatar corresponds on my place in the Swamp posting list with the all-time Home Run list. Number 45 is Paul Konerko with 439.
- Steve of phpBB
- The Dude
- Posts: 8522
- Joined: Mon Mar 11, 2013 10:44 am
- Location: Feeling gravity's pull
Re: Trump Admin Meltdown Thread Part III - A Democratic House
Unless I'm misunderstanding your point, D, I think this argument falls into the same trap as so many I see on Twitter. The Democrats' impeaching Trump will do absolutely nothing to stop detention camps at the southern border. Quite frankly, I think a desperate Trump will be more likely to do desperate things, so an impeachment could theoretically make things worse in that regard.
The only thing that will stop detention camps is removing Trump. Impeachment won't make that happen - at least not directly. The only thing that will make that happen is Trump losing in the 2020 election. So if you want to stop detention camps, then the priority has to be the 2020 election. And since the only option besides Trump is the Democratic nominee, then the priority has to be whatever helps or hurts the eventual Democratic nominee in the election.
Edit: As I said above, maybe I'm misunderstanding. Mr. D, how do you see impeaching Trump in the House leading to the stopping of detention camps.
And his one problem is he didn’t go to Russia that night because he had extracurricular activities, and they froze to death.
Re: Trump Admin Meltdown Thread Part III - A Democratic House
I don't agree unless you add a disclaimer to say "with this Dem leadership" or something. I know I said this before, but their preferring to strategize and slow play and let a hypothetical 2 year old detainee turn into a 3 year old detainee and then a 4 year old detainee rather than shut everything down, if necessary, to fight back will go down as life-defining failures. Its unconscionable to be the only ones in a position of power, even if its lesser power, and do nothing.
Re: Trump Admin Meltdown Thread Part III - A Democratic House
Lead. Don't wait for the public to sway you into action, sway the public.Steve of phpBB wrote: ↑Fri May 24, 2019 10:59 amEdit: As I said above, maybe I'm misunderstanding. Mr. D, how do you see impeaching Trump in the House leading to the stopping of detention camps.
Re: Trump Admin Meltdown Thread Part III - A Democratic House
And I agree its not like impeachment = disbanding the camps. But absolutely destroy every Republican backing him and that includes putting them on record in an impeachment vote. The backlash against the 4 or 5 "moderates" in the Kavanaugh case and the public discomfort it caused should be the minimum baseline here. That also didn't work because of the composition of the Senate, but is anyone sitting here now saying the fight wasn't worth it and maybe we should have just passively let him win?
- Steve of phpBB
- The Dude
- Posts: 8522
- Joined: Mon Mar 11, 2013 10:44 am
- Location: Feeling gravity's pull
Re: Trump Admin Meltdown Thread Part III - A Democratic House
The Kavanaugh case was a big fight because the Republicans needed 50 votes, and they had 51 members. Because the Rs need only 34 votes to stop an impeachment, I don't think there will be nearly as big of a fight over people like Collins and Murkowski.mister d wrote: ↑Fri May 24, 2019 11:16 am And I agree its not like impeachment = disbanding the camps. But absolutely destroy every Republican backing him and that includes putting them on record in an impeachment vote. The backlash against the 4 or 5 "moderates" in the Kavanaugh case and the public discomfort it caused should be the minimum baseline here. That also didn't work because of the composition of the Senate, but is anyone sitting here now saying the fight wasn't worth it and maybe we should have just passively let him win?
Are you saying the Dems (any Dem) can "lead" 18 Republican senators to vote for impeachment?
And his one problem is he didn’t go to Russia that night because he had extracurricular activities, and they froze to death.
- govmentchedda
- The Dude
- Posts: 12759
- Joined: Mon Mar 11, 2013 4:36 pm
Re: Trump Admin Meltdown Thread Part III - A Democratic House
Fucking A rightmister d wrote: ↑Fri May 24, 2019 11:16 am And I agree its not like impeachment = disbanding the camps. But absolutely destroy every Republican backing him and that includes putting them on record in an impeachment vote. The backlash against the 4 or 5 "moderates" in the Kavanaugh case and the public discomfort it caused should be the minimum baseline here. That also didn't work because of the composition of the Senate, but is anyone sitting here now saying the fight wasn't worth it and maybe we should have just passively let him win?
Until everything is less insane, I'm mixing weed with wine.
- Steve of phpBB
- The Dude
- Posts: 8522
- Joined: Mon Mar 11, 2013 10:44 am
- Location: Feeling gravity's pull
Re: Trump Admin Meltdown Thread Part III - A Democratic House
How? How do you absolutely destroy Mitch McConnell? Or Tom Cotton? Or Mike Lee?govmentchedda wrote: ↑Fri May 24, 2019 12:02 pmFucking A rightmister d wrote: ↑Fri May 24, 2019 11:16 am And I agree its not like impeachment = disbanding the camps. But absolutely destroy every Republican backing him and that includes putting them on record in an impeachment vote. The backlash against the 4 or 5 "moderates" in the Kavanaugh case and the public discomfort it caused should be the minimum baseline here. That also didn't work because of the composition of the Senate, but is anyone sitting here now saying the fight wasn't worth it and maybe we should have just passively let him win?
And his one problem is he didn’t go to Russia that night because he had extracurricular activities, and they froze to death.
Re: Trump Admin Meltdown Thread Part III - A Democratic House
You don’t, there are clearly some that are beyond any shame or reasonable fear of public loathing. But half you can (very literally) attempt to ruin their lives rather than treat them as colleagues you disagree with but at the end of the day protect over your own constituents.
Re: Trump Admin Meltdown Thread Part III - A Democratic House
He just declared an emergency to sell arms to the Saudis.
Fucking Christ. If my base gets a warning order for some bullshit, I'm not going to be happy.
But if "things start moving" on my base I'll let you know.
Fucking Christ. If my base gets a warning order for some bullshit, I'm not going to be happy.
But if "things start moving" on my base I'll let you know.
mister d wrote:Couldn't have pegged me better.
EnochRoot wrote:I mean, whatever. Johnnie's all hot cuz I ride him.
- The Sybian
- The Dude
- Posts: 18972
- Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 10:36 am
- Location: Working in the Crap Part of Jersey
Re: Trump Admin Meltdown Thread Part III - A Democratic House
I want Trump impeached as much as anyone, but it's just not a possibility right now. If the House voted for an impeachment hearing today, there is zero chance the Senate votes to impeach. The proceedings will drag on for months if not a year, Trump and McConnell will stonewall and constantly beat the drum that the Dems are playing a disgusting game of politics, trying to reverse the 2016 election results, and prevent the President from doing his job out of a dirty political gamesmanship. 35% of voters will believe them, 35% will be enraged at the attempted gaslighting, and the other 30%, who are the only ones that matter, will mostly get sick of the bullshit, and most will probably be sick of the Dems endless failed attempts to dethrone Trump.
Nothing is going to come out at impeachment proceedings that will magically make the GOP Senators vote to impeach. Using Mr. D's joke against him, maybe impeachment is what will do him in! The proceedings will suck up all of the attention and energy that Dems could use productively to spin their agenda, and in the end, Trump will declare the Senate vote against impeachment is proof of his innocence and the Dem's lacking any ideas other than "get Trump."
And if you think Trump is bad now, what is he going to be like after surviving an impeachment hearing? He will be able to do whatever the fuck he wants without fear, because the House isn't going to impeach him again, right after losing an impeachment battle, and the GOP Senate isn't going to suddenly decide to act as a check on the Executive branch. Sure, Trump barey shows restraint now, but the few people barely keeping him in check now won't stand a fucking chance.
I get the desire for the Dems to fucking do something already, but jumping into impeachment when you know there is no chance of the Senate voting to impeach gains nothing, and stands to lose a lot. For all the low info voters, and that is an overwhelming majority, they will hear the constant drumbeat of Trump declaring his innocence, and know the Senate voted against impeachment, but they won't know much else, and I fear a failed impeachment loses the swing voters.
Nothing is going to come out at impeachment proceedings that will magically make the GOP Senators vote to impeach. Using Mr. D's joke against him, maybe impeachment is what will do him in! The proceedings will suck up all of the attention and energy that Dems could use productively to spin their agenda, and in the end, Trump will declare the Senate vote against impeachment is proof of his innocence and the Dem's lacking any ideas other than "get Trump."
And if you think Trump is bad now, what is he going to be like after surviving an impeachment hearing? He will be able to do whatever the fuck he wants without fear, because the House isn't going to impeach him again, right after losing an impeachment battle, and the GOP Senate isn't going to suddenly decide to act as a check on the Executive branch. Sure, Trump barey shows restraint now, but the few people barely keeping him in check now won't stand a fucking chance.
I get the desire for the Dems to fucking do something already, but jumping into impeachment when you know there is no chance of the Senate voting to impeach gains nothing, and stands to lose a lot. For all the low info voters, and that is an overwhelming majority, they will hear the constant drumbeat of Trump declaring his innocence, and know the Senate voted against impeachment, but they won't know much else, and I fear a failed impeachment loses the swing voters.
An honest to God cult of personality - formed around a failed steak salesman.
-Pruitt
-Pruitt
Re: Trump Admin Meltdown Thread Part III - A Democratic House
mister d wrote:Couldn't have pegged me better.
EnochRoot wrote:I mean, whatever. Johnnie's all hot cuz I ride him.
- Pruitt
- The Dude
- Posts: 18105
- Joined: Tue Jun 04, 2013 10:02 am
- Location: North Shore of Lake Ontario
Re: Trump Admin Meltdown Thread Part III - A Democratic House
And just look at the wording...
Wink wink - top secret news!
"beautiful, with an exotic-yet-familiar facial structure and an arresting gaze."
Re: Trump Admin Meltdown Thread Part III - A Democratic House
Well, this Tweetstorm is quite the read.
mister d wrote:Couldn't have pegged me better.
EnochRoot wrote:I mean, whatever. Johnnie's all hot cuz I ride him.
Re: Trump Admin Meltdown Thread Part III - A Democratic House
Mueller to disappoint us in an hour and six minutes.
well this is gonna be someone's new signature - bronto
- Nonlinear FC
- The Dude
- Posts: 10883
- Joined: Mon Apr 01, 2013 2:09 pm
Re: Trump Admin Meltdown Thread Part III - A Democratic House
Pretty much just cemented the "we didn't indict because it was DoJ policy, not because he was innocent." Probably too subtle to make a real dent.
He also made a real point that he preserved evidence in the moment, so it could be used down the road.
He also made a real point that he preserved evidence in the moment, so it could be used down the road.
You can lead a horse to fish, but you can't fish out a horse.
- Steve of phpBB
- The Dude
- Posts: 8522
- Joined: Mon Mar 11, 2013 10:44 am
- Location: Feeling gravity's pull
Re: Trump Admin Meltdown Thread Part III - A Democratic House
Maybe it's just the bias on my Twitter feed, but it does seem like more folks in Congress are explicitly calling for a formal impeachment inquiry to begin. (Nadler, Booker.)Nonlinear FC wrote: ↑Wed May 29, 2019 10:43 am Pretty much just cemented the "we didn't indict because it was DoJ policy, not because he was innocent." Probably too subtle to make a real dent.
I just called my Congressman - again - to urge him to support an inquiry.
And his one problem is he didn’t go to Russia that night because he had extracurricular activities, and they froze to death.
- Nonlinear FC
- The Dude
- Posts: 10883
- Joined: Mon Apr 01, 2013 2:09 pm
Re: Trump Admin Meltdown Thread Part III - A Democratic House
I think it's happening now. He really couldn't have been much more explicit without coming right and calling for impeachment (which he'd never do in a million years.)Steve of phpBB wrote: ↑Wed May 29, 2019 11:15 amMaybe it's just the bias on my Twitter feed, but it does seem like more folks in Congress are explicitly calling for a formal impeachment inquiry to begin. (Nadler, Booker.)Nonlinear FC wrote: ↑Wed May 29, 2019 10:43 am Pretty much just cemented the "we didn't indict because it was DoJ policy, not because he was innocent." Probably too subtle to make a real dent.
I just called my Congressman - again - to urge him to support an inquiry.
You can lead a horse to fish, but you can't fish out a horse.
- Nonlinear FC
- The Dude
- Posts: 10883
- Joined: Mon Apr 01, 2013 2:09 pm
Re: Trump Admin Meltdown Thread Part III - A Democratic House
Just to be clear in my comments off the cuff pretty much right after he stopped talking, I'm referring to public opinion in terms of making a dent.
The American people, for the most part, got hoodwinked by Barr and don't know what's in Mueller's report. It's the job of the media to fix this, and I hope (but have little faith) that they'll point out exactly what Mueller was saying in his statement today.
The American people, for the most part, got hoodwinked by Barr and don't know what's in Mueller's report. It's the job of the media to fix this, and I hope (but have little faith) that they'll point out exactly what Mueller was saying in his statement today.
You can lead a horse to fish, but you can't fish out a horse.
Re: Trump Admin Meltdown Thread Part III - A Democratic House
Whatever issues the media has -- and it has issues -- the American people are like 100 times more to blame for not bothering to inform themselves about the realities happening around them, so I don't think you framed this as well as you could have.Nonlinear FC wrote: ↑Wed May 29, 2019 11:43 am Just to be clear in my comments off the cuff pretty much right after he stopped talking, I'm referring to public opinion in terms of making a dent.
The American people, for the most part, got hoodwinked by Barr and don't know what's in Mueller's report. It's the job of the media to fix this, and I hope (but have little faith) that they'll point out exactly what Mueller was saying in his statement today.
That's how you end up with people complaining about being warned about tornadoes in their area when The Bachlorette is on.
I have very little hope of anything changing or improving any time soon and short of a massive overhaul of the country's educational system, not sure what could even be done to improve the situation anyway.
Bandwagon fan of the 2023 STANLEY CUP CHAMPIONS!
Re: Trump Admin Meltdown Thread Part III - A Democratic House
See, I just wish he could have stayed bluntly on a reiteration "In other words I would have indicted him. There's a mountain of evidence to support it and if he weren't president I would've done so. Congress has to act on this because democracy is at stake."
But we don't get blunt talking points.
But we don't get blunt talking points.
mister d wrote:Couldn't have pegged me better.
EnochRoot wrote:I mean, whatever. Johnnie's all hot cuz I ride him.
- Nonlinear FC
- The Dude
- Posts: 10883
- Joined: Mon Apr 01, 2013 2:09 pm
Re: Trump Admin Meltdown Thread Part III - A Democratic House
The other thing I'll say: Mueller may want to just drop the mic and move on with his life, but today is just another example of needing to SEE and HEAR someone say stuff in their own words for it to finally sink in with the media.
Obviously, he didn't say anything new today. But even Fox is quoting him as saying he didn't exonerate Trump in the report.
We've talked about it a lot on this board. Does a certain NFL player get booted if there wasn't actual video evidence of him knocking out his gf in that elevator? Probably not.
They need to drag Mueller up to The Hill and let him just lay out his findings for all the world to see. This "I turned in my report" shit is not going to stand.
Obviously, he didn't say anything new today. But even Fox is quoting him as saying he didn't exonerate Trump in the report.
We've talked about it a lot on this board. Does a certain NFL player get booted if there wasn't actual video evidence of him knocking out his gf in that elevator? Probably not.
They need to drag Mueller up to The Hill and let him just lay out his findings for all the world to see. This "I turned in my report" shit is not going to stand.
You can lead a horse to fish, but you can't fish out a horse.
- Nonlinear FC
- The Dude
- Posts: 10883
- Joined: Mon Apr 01, 2013 2:09 pm
Re: Trump Admin Meltdown Thread Part III - A Democratic House
brian wrote: ↑Wed May 29, 2019 11:54 amWhatever issues the media has -- and it has issues -- the American people are like 100 times more to blame for not bothering to inform themselves about the realities happening around them, so I don't think you framed this as well as you could have.Nonlinear FC wrote: ↑Wed May 29, 2019 11:43 am Just to be clear in my comments off the cuff pretty much right after he stopped talking, I'm referring to public opinion in terms of making a dent.
The American people, for the most part, got hoodwinked by Barr and don't know what's in Mueller's report. It's the job of the media to fix this, and I hope (but have little faith) that they'll point out exactly what Mueller was saying in his statement today.
That's how you end up with people complaining about being warned about tornadoes in their area when The Bachlorette is on.
I have very little hope of anything changing or improving any time soon and short of a massive overhaul of the country's educational system, not sure what could even be done to improve the situation anyway.
I totally get what you're saying, but I'm getting too old for this shit. The media frames stuff and is extremely complicit in how the average American has absorbed a very complicated subject. They constantly cover Trump and his surrogates as if they are coming to the table in good faith and have allowed outright lies an propaganda to rule the day.
You can lead a horse to fish, but you can't fish out a horse.
Re: Trump Admin Meltdown Thread Part III - A Democratic House
Yeah, I don't get why this is an option.Nonlinear FC wrote: ↑Wed May 29, 2019 11:59 amThis "I turned in my report" shit is not going to stand.
- Nonlinear FC
- The Dude
- Posts: 10883
- Joined: Mon Apr 01, 2013 2:09 pm
Re: Trump Admin Meltdown Thread Part III - A Democratic House
I kind of get the feeling he's just setting it up to have more impact. He's gonna be all "aw, shucks, I'll reluctantly go up there, if you insist."
If you think about the positioning, it's actually kind of brilliant.
If you think about the positioning, it's actually kind of brilliant.
You can lead a horse to fish, but you can't fish out a horse.
Re: Trump Admin Meltdown Thread Part III - A Democratic House
I think the reason he didn’t say this is that it can be really hard to convict someone for criminal obstruction of justice, even for actions that quite obviously seem corrupt. This article from The NY Times is a couple of years old, but it discusses some of these issues. So even apart from the issue of whether a sitting President can be indicted, it’s not clear that criminal charges against Trump could have stuck. Of course, none of this limits Congress’ ability to decide that his actions were sufficiently blameworthy to warrant impeachment.Johnnie wrote: ↑Wed May 29, 2019 11:58 am See, I just wish he could have stayed bluntly on a reiteration "In other words I would have indicted him. There's a mountain of evidence to support it and if he weren't president I would've done so. Congress has to act on this because democracy is at stake."
But we don't get blunt talking points.
Re: Trump Admin Meltdown Thread Part III - A Democratic House
That's fair. Though your last sentence drives the point home when all is said and done.Joe K wrote: ↑Wed May 29, 2019 12:45 pmI think the reason he didn’t say this is that it can be really hard to convict someone for criminal obstruction of justice, even for actions that quite obviously seem corrupt. This article from The NY Times is a couple of years old, but it discusses some of these issues. So even apart from the issue of whether a sitting President can be indicted, it’s not clear that criminal charges against Trump could have stuck. Of course, none of this limits Congress’ ability to decide that his actions were sufficiently blameworthy to warrant impeachment.Johnnie wrote: ↑Wed May 29, 2019 11:58 am See, I just wish he could have stayed bluntly on a reiteration "In other words I would have indicted him. There's a mountain of evidence to support it and if he weren't president I would've done so. Congress has to act on this because democracy is at stake."
But we don't get blunt talking points.
Folks like us and other non-media entities can call it straight, but Congressional action and media complicity through reluctance plus poisoned American minds via propaganda mean that an absolute source like Mueller had to make a clear declaration or else it's all meaningless. It's so frustrating.
mister d wrote:Couldn't have pegged me better.
EnochRoot wrote:I mean, whatever. Johnnie's all hot cuz I ride him.
Re: Trump Admin Meltdown Thread Part III - A Democratic House
Ditto, D.
"It's not politically prudent for me plus I'm worth a fuckton of money, so sorry Gen X, Millennials, and Gen Z, I'm more important."
Edit:
See, this is the spin shit I can't stand. How the literal words he said are incorrectly interpreted. This link is from Mediaite, which is a rag, but it's the echo chamber that stuff like this contributes to.
Robert Mueller Says He’s Not Confident That Trump Didn’t Commit a Crime
And the quote used to justify the headline is the same exact one used to make the exact opposite point elsewhere online.
"It's not politically prudent for me plus I'm worth a fuckton of money, so sorry Gen X, Millennials, and Gen Z, I'm more important."
Edit:
See, this is the spin shit I can't stand. How the literal words he said are incorrectly interpreted. This link is from Mediaite, which is a rag, but it's the echo chamber that stuff like this contributes to.
Robert Mueller Says He’s Not Confident That Trump Didn’t Commit a Crime
And the quote used to justify the headline is the same exact one used to make the exact opposite point elsewhere online.
Fucking maddening.Mueller reiterated that if they were confident the president did not commit a crime they would have said so, but they didn’t.
“If we had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so,” Mueller said. “We did not, however, make a determination as to whether the president did commit a crime. The introduction to the volume two of our report explains that decision."
mister d wrote:Couldn't have pegged me better.
EnochRoot wrote:I mean, whatever. Johnnie's all hot cuz I ride him.