Donald Trump Presidency discussion Thread VI

batgoat

peddlelies wrote: »

It's amazing how partisan this thread is that I get attacked over semantics for pointing out misinformation that was repeated by several posters here.

This is what I wrote



The claim was repeated several times live on air by guests and it wasn't immediately corrected either initially. I don't care if Rick Wilson went on his twitter after the fact, barely anyone will see that compared to the million + watching live. MSNBC should have issued a correction in whatever programme he appeared on and not need to have Fox to contact them that night looking for a correction.

Done bickering.

It's partisan for a news channel to push things like the Seth Rich conspiracy for weeks even when they know it's patently untrue. For an error to occur on a live program and to be corrected after the fact, that is not partisan.

BonnieSituation

Do the Trump Supporters here have any issue with DJTs 11000+ lies so far uttered?

Do they feel he should be held to the same standard as MSNBC?

Should he correct them?

Would be rather "partisan" and hypocritical to ignore them wouldn't it?

Gwen Cooper

peddlelies wrote: »

Fake news eh.

https://www.foxnews.com/media/msnbc-false-claim-spreads

"A prominent MSNBC contributor’s false claim that Fox News would not air ex-Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s upcoming congressional testimony has morphed into a full-blown conspiracy theory -- and anti-Trump liberals don’t seem to care.

Fox News will cover the highly anticipated hearing in its entirety and has heavily promoted the event, but that didn’t stop everyone -- from an MSNBC anchor to a famed novelist -- from misinforming their fans."

That's some choice of words there. Reminds me of the language used frequently when I was growing up in a post-Soviet country.

everlast75

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Paththic post. The term unfair is used in law and hearings all the time, have you really never heard of an unfair hearing?


Anyway, the following is quite interesting if true:

You know what would be quite interesting, if true?

That the president of the United States obstructed an investigation on multiple occasions into actual foreign interference in the election to help his chances of winning, that such interference was welcomed by his team and associates, and that Trump ran interference for said foreign adversary by covering for them, even to the point where he contradicted his own intelligence agencies.

Oh wait a second. That is true!

Leroy42

peddlelies wrote: »

It was repeated several times on air and wasn't immediately corrected either.

Anyway, the point isn't that Fox or MSNBC are more righteous, people are so caught up in their bubbles they won't take the time out to check things. A quick google would suffice.

https://www.mediaite.com/tv/msnbc-guests-keep-repeating-false-claim-that-fox-news-isnt-covering-the-mueller-hearings/

So correcting within minutes isn't acceptable, so you want immediate correction?

Is this true for everyone in every situation? Should Trump be stopped during his campaign speeches when he says something wrong? Or KAC when she is out batting for Trump.

My bet would be that you would see that as trying to stifle free speech. As usual, any attempt at outrage by Trump supporters is immediately suspect as they have never raised the issue with regards to their man.

Do you think Hannity should be calling out Trump Jr et al when they are on his program? Because they don't I assume you think Fox should be disregarded as a media source.

kilns

to be honest Muellers hearing will be much ado about nothing, nothing new will be heard or nothing shocking will be revealed. I think it is a bad move bringing him as after this is finished Trump can then claim its all over now put up or shut up basically

duploelabs

kilns wrote: »

to be honest Muellers hearing will be much ado about nothing, nothing new will be heard or nothing shocking will be revealed. I think it is a bad move bringing him as after this is finished Trump can then claim its all over now put up or shut up basically

If you've read the report then yes, as Mueller said, he won't deviate from the contents of that report, but that's a big 'if' as many members of the house and senate have not, let alone the general public

Penn

kilns wrote: »

to be honest Muellers hearing will be much ado about nothing, nothing new will be heard or nothing shocking will be revealed. I think it is a bad move bringing him as after this is finished Trump can then claim its all over now put up or shut up basically

The only thing about it is that so many of Trump's followers have likely never read the Mueller report (or summaries of it), but rather just whatever Fox anchors have said about it. There was a clip of one Trump supporter recently after a town hall meeting saying she was surprised the politician said there was anything negative about Trump in the report because she hadn't heard anything about that.

The difference with the Mueller hearing will be even if they just have Mueller himself vocalise things which are already in the report, that will travel much further than talking heads on news shows giving their own interpretation of the report.

I agree nothing of significance will likely come from Mueller's hearings today. Given the DOJ's instructions to him and his own assertions that he's not going to really say anything outside of what's in the report, I think he'll mostly toe the line. But it's the effect it could have in hearing the conclusions of the Mueller report from Mueller himself, especially key lines of it, that will be much harder to dismiss.

Quin_Dub

kilns wrote: »

to be honest Muellers hearing will be much ado about nothing, nothing new will be heard or nothing shocking will be revealed. I think it is a bad move bringing him as after this is finished Trump can then claim its all over now put up or shut up basically

duploelabs wrote: »

If you've read the report then yes, as Mueller said, he won't deviate from the contents of that report, but that's a big 'if' as many members of the house and senate have not, let alone the general public

As someone else commented - Americans won't read the book but they might watch the movie.

For people like us , that are interested in politics and read background/detailed stuff , there will be likely be nothing new. But for a very significant proportion of the world this may be the first time that they actually get to hear the details of the report without massive quantities of spin (from either side).

The only potentially "new" thing would be if either side gets Mueller to definitively answer the question "If Trump was not President would you have charged him with a crime".

If they get him to respond to that question , the answer will have significant implications.

If he says "Yes , we would have brought charges" then the Democrats have a huge victory and a campaign battle cry for 2020.

Equally if he says "No" then the GOP and Trump have a massive win in terms of shutting down any Democrat impeachment claims etc.

Will anyone actually have the guts to ask the question though?

Un-asked , both sides can continue to attempt to claim the high ground, but once the answer is out there, it's game over for one side on this topic.

Will someone take the risk of getting the answer they don't want?

Gwen Cooper

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Will anyone actually have the guts to ask the question though?

I'm sure someone will ask it, but for some reason I have a feeling that Mueller would choose not to respond to that question. Don't know why I think that.

However if that question is asked and answered, it would definitely help to set things in motion. Whether it's Trump campaign if Mueller said no or impeachment hearings if he said yes, at least something would finally start happening.

Quin_Dub

Gwen Cooper wrote: »

I'm sure someone will ask it, but for some reason I have a feeling that Mueller would choose not to respond to that question. Don't know why I think that.

However if that question is asked and answered, it would definitely help to set things in motion. Whether it's Trump campaign if Mueller said no or impeachment hearings if he said yes, at least something would finally start happening.

I'd tend to agree with you , I think Mueller will defer to the report and stick to the "if we could have exonerated him we would have" line without actually clarifying if Trump would have been charged were he not POTUS.

Penn

Quin_Dub wrote: »

The only potentially "new" thing would be if either side gets Mueller to definitively answer the question "If Trump was not President would you have charged him with a crime".

Mueller would likely deflect, say he can't answer hypotheticals, Trump is President so he referred to DOJ guidelines on whether a sitting President can be indicted etc.

I think the question will be asked. The vital thing will be how hard they'll push after that. Will they also find a roundabout way of asking the same question;

"Is (offence) a crime punishable by law?" (answer would obviously be Yes as the idea of whether Trump could be indicted for the crime is removed from the question)
"Why did you not exonerate Trump regarding that crime?" (Mueller can go back to If we had enough evidence he didn't commit a crime we would have said so)
"Is there ample evidence to suggest the President did commit a crime?"

The hearing will all come down to how questions are phrased. Mueller seems to not want to get involved in any of this. His report was submitted, it's up to those above him to decide how to proceed, and Mueller has to be impartial if for no other reason than to defend the impartiality of the report itself. But clever questions (hopefully much cleverer than my off-the-cuff examples above) could force him to state things outright. The fact Trump has been ragetweeting about it shows he knows it could do a bit of damage to him.

duploelabs

Quin_Dub wrote: »

I'd tend to agree with you , I think Mueller will defer to the report and stick to the "if we could have exonerated him we would have" line without actually clarifying if Trump would have been charged were he not POTUS.

If he caveats that with a statement of the DOJ policy of indictment of a sitting president, then it'll get interesting

duploelabs

What time Irish time is the hearing?

mcmoustache

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Paththic post. The term unfair is used in law and hearings all the time, have you really never heard of an unfair hearing?

No. Pathetic would be complaining about life's challenges being unfair. But maybe we run in some very different circles.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Anyway, the following is quite interesting if true:

It could be as huge as his (John Solomon) Uranium One crusade. He might be right this time but his record shows that his published opinions for the hill can be more than a bit deceptive.

mcmoustache

duploelabs wrote: »

What time Irish time is the hearing?

13:30 if my maths are correct. It's 8:30 eastern US time which is normally 5 hours behind us except around the time that we change the clocks.

weisses

duploelabs wrote: »

What time Irish time is the hearing?

I think it starts 1.30 pm Irish time

On Wednesday, Mueller will testify before the House Judiciary Committee beginning at 8:30 am Eastern, and then before the House Intelligence Committee starting at noon Eastern. Questioning in the first three-hour session will largely focus on obstruction of justice, while the second two-hour session will focus on Russian interference with the 2016 election.

looksee

According to the BBC its 12.30 GMT - which is now!

Leroy42

We are not on GMT at the moment

hill16bhoy

looksee wrote: »

According to the BBC its 12.30 GMT - which is now!

It's actually 11:31 GMT as I type.

It starts at 1:30pm Irish time as far as I know.

duploelabs

link to the stream

https://www.c-span.org/video/?462628-1/robert-mueller-testifies-house-judiciary-committee&live

Gwen Cooper

I have this open on the side of my screen: https://time.is/ET

It's currently 7:30, so another hour to go. I'm hoping for a few more panicky tweets from the Donald, who already managed to call himself a "very innocent president" today.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1153980875488542720

Ben Done

hill16bhoy wrote: »

It's actually 11:31 GMT as I type.

It starts at 1:30pm Irish time as far as I know.

Think it's C-Span where you can get the stream / audio feed

MrFresh

Gwen Cooper wrote: »

I have this open on the side of my screen: https://time.is/ET

It's currently 7:30, so another hour to go. I'm hoping for a few more panicky tweets from the Donald, who already managed to call himself a "very innocent president" today.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1153980875488542720

This from a man who wanted the death penalty for some black kids even after they were exonerated.

kilns

Its going to be a sad day when you see low lifes like Jim Jordan etc who will try to discredit Mueller in favour of a much lesser man (the one they are trying to protect)

Penn

Anyone know what the guy who got kicked out was yelling at Mueller?

Igotadose

Penn wrote: »

Anyone know what the guy who got kicked out was yelling at Mueller?

"...... (and Manafort) downloaded encrypted apps on the day of the Trump Tower meeting!" is what I heard.

FreudianSlippers

Penn wrote: »

Anyone know what the guy who got kicked out was yelling at Mueller?

Couldn't make it out myself.

StringerBell

Gwen Cooper wrote: »

I have this open on the side of my screen: https://time.is/ET

It's currently 7:30, so another hour to go. I'm hoping for a few more panicky tweets from the Donald, who already managed to call himself a "very innocent president" today.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1153980875488542720

Watching him and his supporters cry, whinge and squirm is and will be a nice cherry on top of my morning after watching the cricket

"Suck it up buttercup" I mean how can they say that to anybody with a straight face?

FreudianSlippers

I question Doug Collins telling Mueller what's in the Mueller report?