@marcosromao I agree on the Mueller testimony. I am not getting my hopes up but if something good does come of it I will be pleased. As for Moron supporters, most to me are people who don't value things like good manners, empathy or compassion, UNLESS they are the ones who need compassion. I think this is what they see in him that they admire. He is rude, crude and self-centered and they admire that. They are also people who hate change. Moron has promised to bring back the things that they have lost like factory jobs or coal jobs. They don't seem to realize this isn't going to happen. But they want it so badly they won't believe anything else. It reminds me of the Obama is going to come get your guns farce. I know people who honestly believed that! I remember when Rush Lumpital (my name for him) started his rise to fame my mother and aunt and uncle loved him! He hated all the same people they did! Wow. I called my mother out on it one night and ask how she could believe someone who has proven to be an out and out lyer. She said it didn't matter that some people believed what he said and agreed with him so it didn't matter if it was a lie or not. I could never understand that logic!
As for Billy Barr, I would like to know why he took that job. Ego, Money, Blackmail? I do believe in Karma and I believe it will hit him hard. I think he is going to be ruined by this job. I can see him losing his law license very easily. I truly hold the belief when this fiasco is all over a great many of Morons administration are going to pay a very heavy price, some of them even doing jail time. Who knows why they think it is worth it. Just remember Karma is a bitch (excuse my language).
Bill Barr said that at his age his reputation no longer matters and that everyone dies.
www.huffpost.com/entry/william-barr-reputation-everyone-dies_n_5cf139c2e4b0a1997b693ad4
Adam Serwer of The Atlantic did a good job explaining how Barr thinks and what we can expect from him in his article "The Dangerous Ideas of Bill Barr.
"Barr is not protecting Trump because he thinks Trump is the most accomplished president in modern history, because he fears Trump, because the real-estate mogul has some psychological hold on him, or because he has been corrupted. Barr is defending Trump because Barr is a zealot"who
believes that the Mueller investigation would damage the office of the presidency that would go beyond just this president. He really feels that the president is above the law.
He was the Republicans' perfect choice to protect their Ace-in-the-Hole president.
I feel Mueller will follow Barr's orders.
The House dems know this about Barr and they also know that Mueller isn't going to tell them what Barr says not to tell them. They will likely use the testimony to get the American people to see what is in the Mueller report that anyone who has read already knows.
This article just popped up about how Mueller's testimony could hurt Trump. The writer says the same thing I just wrote above:
In reality, if Democrats can simply bring to life what Mueller did document — and convey that to a national audience — that alone will be a real victory, and an important public service. -- Greg Sargent, Washington Post
I’ve already posted this under the Buttigieg forum, but I’ve decided to also include it here. Tim Wise, a published author, educator and anti-racism activist was interviewed on a couple of programs yesterday. Wise worked extensively on defeating David Duke when Duke ran for U.S. Senate in 1990 and Governor of Louisiana in 1991. He draws from that experience when he explains that the Dems should make racist politics the central moral issue of their campaign. Wise states, “I would say crafting an argument that this is an existential crisis for the nation--and making it about T****'s bigotry and who we want to be as a country, would be far more effective in inspiring them to make up their minds.” Wise discusses this in a podcast interview he had with Slate: https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/07/one-activist-wants-to-use-the-anti-david-duke-playbook-against-president-trump.html
He also addresses this topic in a long series of tweets, which are worth reading if you have the time. I am attaching those here: https://twitter.com/timjacobwise/status/1152930670093787141
Interesting that one of our community, Karen, got a hit today in her prediction that "A Texan speaks out against Trump." (predicted on 6/6/19) Great quote from Will Hurd, the Republican U.S. Representative from West Texas who voted with the dems to condemn Trump's racists remarks: “If the Republican party in Texas doesn’t start looking like Texas, there won’t be a Republican party in Texas."
https://qz.com/1668332/why-some-texas-republicans-condemned-trumps-racist-tweets/
well I'm disappointed in Mueller but I can't believe if he's asked a direct question he won't be honest.
I agree with Jeanne that simply reading the several cases of obstruction and collusion will be very educational. And about Muller being honest when asked a direct question, wait and see, he will be honest, granted, and also obfuscate: "is this obstruction if done by anybody?" "- Well, it depends, the law, as written, but also the interpretation of Justice XYZ..."
(But Goddess, make me wrong, and may tomorrow be a deluge of righteousness!)
I think Ari Melber had something on his show showcasing the differences in how questions were answered by James Comey and by Robert Mueller. It was a video montage.
Comey is a story teller. He would be asked a question, and then answer by providing a background, a list of characters, the answer and the nuance and situations guiding that answer.
Mueller will answer the question. He will not provide background or entertainment with it. More importantly, he WILL NOT speculate.
For example, if the question were posed "If the DOJ didn't have the piece saying you can't indict a sitting President, would there have been enough evidence to secure an indictment?"
Mueller would answer something akin to "The team gathered evidence and documented it for future use. I will not speculate if there would have been enough for an indictment as it was determined, early on, that we would not indict the President"
I will leave it to the Rachel Maddow's of the world to find the key soundbites where Mueller "hints" what he wants Congress to do.
In the end, it will be the Fox News drunk crowd that needs to hear this testimony and realize that what they've been fed "no collusion/total exoneration" isn't factual. They need their world shaken a bit so they can wake up.