Robert Mueller finally testified today. The Democrats were hoping he would come out swinging and take Trump down no matter the cost. Well... that didn't happen.
By all accounts outside of Hollywood, Mueller's testimony was a disaster for the Democrats. They had hoped that Mueller would come to the hearing and just blast Trump. They wanted to hear that while Mueller was constrained by somethingsomething when he wrote the report, the truth was that he was awash in evidence that Putin peed on Trump as he handed Russian spies somethingsomething and they handed him Hillary Clinton's password (BILLSUCKS) as they plotted to pick up underage girls with Epstein. They wanted to hear that Russian banks and Trump's campaign computers were locked together in a love embrace, that promises were made to somethingsomething in exchange for somethingsomething TRUMP TOWERS! And get that bastard son of his too!!!
And none of that happened.
Mueller showed up and was lethargic, timid and prone to memory lapses which suggest that (1) he had little idea what was in the report, (2) he is well past his prime, and (3) he may not be a very bright man. He offered nothing new either. In fact, if anything, he took back his boldest steps. He evaded question after question from both Democrat and Republican. He offered zero evidence beyond the report. He gave no good soundbites. He offered little to support the vendetta. Indeed, the one thing he seemed to offer the Democrats -- the no-brainer idea that it would be legal to indict Trump once he left office -- he took away a little later by saying there was no evidence to do so. And the Democratic collective-woody deflated.
This was a total failure for the Democrats. And they noticed. Most political Democrats remained silent. Most pundits, like 4 out of 5 at Politico, noted that there was nothing new, this was a bad day for the Democrats and for Mueller, and it seems impeachment is stalled. (The fifth was busy wishfully thinking evidence that wasn't offered.) A handful of pundits did continue their sales job that this proved impeachment-worthy, but few others did. Hollywood was a notable exception were a small cabal of anti-Trumps (Chris Evans, John Cusack, Alyssa Milano and a couple more) acted as if something important had been learned and screamed for impeachment. Yawn. (As an aside, Joy Behar got racist, calling Trump's black supporters "blackground.")
Interestingly, the Democrats have now turned on Mueller with a majority believing that the report was rigged from the beginning. I'm surprised they aren't screaming "black flag".
Anyways, the general consensus is that this will do nothing more than cement opinions on both sides. I think that's wrong. I think this will demoralize the Democrats even more -- continued losses do that, energize Republicans to support Trump, and further ruin the main Democratic argument, which is that Trump is somehow evil. I also think this will make the pro-impeachment types even more nuts, which is bad for the Democrats. Not only does that turn off the normals, but it will drive an even bigger between between Nancy Pelosi and the stupid crazy wing of the party.
This won't end the debate as the Democrats never give up a conspiracy or a narrative, but I think it makes it impossible to sell. All told, this improves Trump's re-election chances a good couple percentages.
Thoughts?
By all accounts outside of Hollywood, Mueller's testimony was a disaster for the Democrats. They had hoped that Mueller would come to the hearing and just blast Trump. They wanted to hear that while Mueller was constrained by somethingsomething when he wrote the report, the truth was that he was awash in evidence that Putin peed on Trump as he handed Russian spies somethingsomething and they handed him Hillary Clinton's password (BILLSUCKS) as they plotted to pick up underage girls with Epstein. They wanted to hear that Russian banks and Trump's campaign computers were locked together in a love embrace, that promises were made to somethingsomething in exchange for somethingsomething TRUMP TOWERS! And get that bastard son of his too!!!
And none of that happened.
Mueller showed up and was lethargic, timid and prone to memory lapses which suggest that (1) he had little idea what was in the report, (2) he is well past his prime, and (3) he may not be a very bright man. He offered nothing new either. In fact, if anything, he took back his boldest steps. He evaded question after question from both Democrat and Republican. He offered zero evidence beyond the report. He gave no good soundbites. He offered little to support the vendetta. Indeed, the one thing he seemed to offer the Democrats -- the no-brainer idea that it would be legal to indict Trump once he left office -- he took away a little later by saying there was no evidence to do so. And the Democratic collective-woody deflated.
This was a total failure for the Democrats. And they noticed. Most political Democrats remained silent. Most pundits, like 4 out of 5 at Politico, noted that there was nothing new, this was a bad day for the Democrats and for Mueller, and it seems impeachment is stalled. (The fifth was busy wishfully thinking evidence that wasn't offered.) A handful of pundits did continue their sales job that this proved impeachment-worthy, but few others did. Hollywood was a notable exception were a small cabal of anti-Trumps (Chris Evans, John Cusack, Alyssa Milano and a couple more) acted as if something important had been learned and screamed for impeachment. Yawn. (As an aside, Joy Behar got racist, calling Trump's black supporters "blackground.")
Interestingly, the Democrats have now turned on Mueller with a majority believing that the report was rigged from the beginning. I'm surprised they aren't screaming "black flag".
Anyways, the general consensus is that this will do nothing more than cement opinions on both sides. I think that's wrong. I think this will demoralize the Democrats even more -- continued losses do that, energize Republicans to support Trump, and further ruin the main Democratic argument, which is that Trump is somehow evil. I also think this will make the pro-impeachment types even more nuts, which is bad for the Democrats. Not only does that turn off the normals, but it will drive an even bigger between between Nancy Pelosi and the stupid crazy wing of the party.
This won't end the debate as the Democrats never give up a conspiracy or a narrative, but I think it makes it impossible to sell. All told, this improves Trump's re-election chances a good couple percentages.
Thoughts?
1. When the wave sweeps out and the next one comes in, one of the leaders of the nation will be a person who was considered fringe at the height of the last wave. Obama and Trump were both fringe during the prior president. At the height of Bush II and Obama neither guy was the direction that the opposition party's critics though it needed to go in but radicalism/purity and charisma eventually swept them into power.
ReplyDelete2. Trump (as is common in the talk radio wing of the party) has always been a huge Putin fan, denying things in plain sight (invasions, assassinations and suchlike) and imagining meetings that never happened and suchlike. The damage that does him was done before the opposition decided to accuse Trump of a secret alliance with his BFF.
3. Democrats' morale will be fine. Picking petty fights is what Trump does to keep himself amused, so there will be a lot of inflammatory tweets to fuel their rage between now and next year's vote.
The economy is doing great (much better than it did under Obama) but like with Obama but even moreso Trump is incapable of shutting up so the garrulousness that helped him win office will steadily cost his party seats. However, as per the trend I do expect Trump to win reelection.
The CBS News led off this morning with the governor of Puerto Rico resigning...then went into a story about Epstein getting hurt...then did a short bit on the Mueller hearing...then went to weather. That hearing was a big waste of time and money, but you know what? Rudy Guiliani is right, the body is buried now.
ReplyDeleteCritch, ditto on NPR. The lefty outlets are sweeping the hearing under the rug as fast as they can.
ReplyDeleteSomething for the circular file: Jonah Goldberg, who keeps finding new ways for me to regret admiring him, tweeted his praise for Mueller as the "better man" in comparison to Trump because he managed to avoid the use of a single ad hominem in the course of his testimony. (Testimony which mainly consisted of repeating "that is correct" for the 100th time.)
I mean, never mind that Mueller is turning burden of proof on its head and issuing reports that violate his authorization. At least he didn't use any mean words.
For my two cents worth I would say that Nancy Pelosi is as far left as the so called Squad. She just knows how to play the long game. I get your point though. I was delighted with the final deflation of Mueller, who until his report came out was the silver bullet that was going to destroy Trump. It was sweet. And this last bit is completely unrelated but I wanted to mention it. Rutger Hauer died. If I was in charge of his funeral there would be a screen set up and his tears in rain speech from Bladerunner would be played. What a eulogy.
ReplyDeleteGypsyTyger
Gypsy, Hauer's death makes me sad. I totally agree about the eulogy!
ReplyDeleteI agree on Pelosi. She understands the long game, but she's not moderate. She's far left.
tryanmax, Goldberg lost me almost 20 years ago when he gave this really strange confession about wanting to kill something. It was odd and the fact he felt like confessing it was even stranger.
ReplyDeleteThat said, I agree that he's become pretty intolerable.
I haven’t listened much to Jonah. His eulogy for the Clinton’s after the election was a classic, but he is true “”never trumper” fir sure
DeleteCritch, When things go wrong for the left, expect the story to be buried. Always.
ReplyDeleteAnthony, I don't think we're in a wave situation. I think that underestimates the reasons why both Obama and Trump were chosen. There were specific reasons that both got them through the primaries and then different reasons that got them elected. Neither was a wave. In fact, both barely won. Both were turnout elections.
ReplyDeletethis is why I believe they are turning for Harris. Despite the good reasons you have given why they won’t support her as they did Obama, the Dems need blacks to turn out so badly, I think they believe she is the only one who might bring them out. Hopefully, she won’t and she has signed on to the radical agenda which will make it tough to carry the swing voters
DeleteOne last word on the subject of Hauer. As far as I am concerned Die Hard is a perfect movie. And an enormous part of that is Alan Rickman. He was flawless and indelible as Hans Gruber. Alan Rickman's portrayal of Hans Gruber is one of the great villain portrayals in all of film. But I've always thought that Rutger Hauer would have been a better choice, if only slightly, and for this reason. He has all the qualities that Rickman brought to the character, he's European. He had the same level of sophistication and intelligence that Rickman had. But Hauer had one thing that Rickman didn't. Rickman was a little guy. He dominated the gang by being ruthless and smart. He was the one they needed because he had the plan. Hauer had all those qualities, but he also had a size and physicality that Rickman didn't. You can see Rutger Hauer physically dominating the gang of violent men. Rickman's portrayal of Hans Gruber is an all time great one. But it's at least an interesting idea.
ReplyDeleteGypsyTyger
Gypsy, I think Rickman brought a hint of satirical flavor to Gruber that Hauer would have played straight up. That same satirical flavor was pushed over the line in his portrayal of the Sheriff of Nottingham. I suspect people of good intent can disagree whether that slight satirical flavor used with Gruber was good ir bad. Cleatly, Hauer would have played him differently than Rickman did
Deletethought I’d been locked out again. It is fun to see all the analysts spin this so many different ways. I don’t think it will have much impact. There is testimony the president suborned perjury, but the fact nobody interfered with the investigation and there was no underlying crime would hurt an honest trial. What is worrisome though is there seems to be an inability to be unbiased when it cones to big high stakes pitical investigations
ReplyDeleteBasically I no longer trust our government institutions ti do their job with a blind fold on
Jed: Good point. Thanks for the feedback.
ReplyDeleteGypsyTyger
Jed, I'm glad you're still there!
ReplyDeleteOn Hauer v. Rickman, I like the roles as is. I could see Hauer doing Die Hard but I think it would have been a very different movie. Rickman added an element of farce or sarcasm to the film that really stands out. I don't think Hauer would have done that. His film would have been different. It might have been as good, but we'll never one.
That said, I now wonder how Rickman would have done in Blade Runner? Hmm.
indeed
DeleteAs an aside, it makes me sad that these men are both gone. It seems that my childhood is slowly vanishing.
ReplyDeletesorry to say the older you become the faster the pace of the vanushing
ReplyDeleteAndrew,
ReplyDeleteI thing the waves are evident not so much in the margins of victory in presidential races, but in the width of victory at all levels.
Tennessee Jed: Thanks for the response. I got home late and was tired the other night so I didn't say very much but I wanted to acknowledge your response. That's a good observation about Rickman.And by the way, "a hint of satirical flavor" is better than anything Roger Ebert came up with in his entire career. ;) Andrew: While I've always thought that Hauer could replace Rickman, I don't think Rickman could have replaced Hauer. Hauer had Rickman's intelligence, his articulateness, his sophistication but Rickman didn't have Hauer's physicality and athleticism.Remember, Roy Batty was going to kill Rick Deckard with his bare hands. Rickman had that aura of dangerousness but he needed a gun to pull it off. Hauer's characters could turn violent at any instant. This whole thing is just me thinking out loud. I don't intend any criticism of Rickman, who was magnificent as Hans Gruber and in so many other roles.
ReplyDeleteGypsyTyger