Loading...

Better Press Corps, Please (Mueller Edition)

Loading...
Better Press Corps, Please (Mueller Edition) - Hallo friend WELCOME TO AMERICA, In the article you read this time with the title Better Press Corps, Please (Mueller Edition), we have prepared well for this article you read and download the information therein. hopefully fill posts Article AMERICA, Article CULTURAL, Article ECONOMIC, Article POLITICAL, Article SECURITY, Article SOCCER, Article SOCIAL, we write this you can understand. Well, happy reading.

Title : Better Press Corps, Please (Mueller Edition)
link : Better Press Corps, Please (Mueller Edition)

see also


Better Press Corps, Please (Mueller Edition)

Reactions to Mueller's testimony were all over the map, but at least there was consensus on the absolute worst tweet of the day: And there was dunking throughout the realm. Beyond the stupidity of focusing on "optics" in the middle of the most serious constitutional crisis since Watergate, I honestly have no idea what he was talking about. Call me naive, but if we're going to talk optics I kind of think Louie Gohmert bellowing QAnon-level conspiracy theories at Mueller (for example) was, you know, a little sub-optimal, optics-wise, for the Republicans. Especially on a day when Trump's response was spectacularly unhinged even by Trump standards: But it wasn't just Todd. There was, of course, the ever-reliable Maggie Haberman. And anyone browsing Memeorandum this morning can find headlines like "The Blockbuster That Wasn't: Mueller Disappoints the Democrats" and "Mueller's Labored Performance Was a Departure From His Once-Fabled Stamina" (both NYT). There were some good substantive pieces (here, e.g.), but mostly it was optics über alles--from the same people who allowed themselves to be spectacularly bamboozled by Trump's bagman in the DOJ.

For whatever it's worth, I think these takes are mostly wrong. I watched the hearings knowing more than the average American, but not having read the report, and thought the litany of obstructive acts (with Mueller confirming in each case that yes, Trump did that) was pretty effective. In particular, the exchanges with Jeffries and Lieu (the latter noted by Yastreblyansky yesterday) were pretty damning:
Democratic Representative Hakeem Jeffries sought to demonstrate the disconnect by walking Mueller through the three-prong test....

“Yes,” Mueller said, confirming the obstructive act....

“True,” Mueller said, confirming the nexus to an official proceeding....

Jeffries then moved on to the third element, corrupt intent, and Mueller once again effectively affirmed the point....

Mueller, seeing the trick, tried to cut it off....But by then, the point was made: Mueller himself had acknowledged all the ways that Trump’s behavior met all three prongs of the test for obstruction of justice.
I don't know any more than Chuck Todd what the average viewer thinks of this, but I would guess that anyone watching the hearing (and I hope to god a lot of people did) understood, maybe for the first time, the seriousness of Trump's malfeasance.
Reactions to Mueller's testimony were all over the map, but at least there was consensus on the absolute worst tweet of the day: And there was dunking throughout the realm. Beyond the stupidity of focusing on "optics" in the middle of the most serious constitutional crisis since Watergate, I honestly have no idea what he was talking about. Call me naive, but if we're going to talk optics I kind of think Louie Gohmert bellowing QAnon-level conspiracy theories at Mueller (for example) was, you know, a little sub-optimal, optics-wise, for the Republicans. Especially on a day when Trump's response was spectacularly unhinged even by Trump standards:
Loading...
Tom Hilton (@TVHilton) July 24, 2019 But it wasn't just Todd. There was, of course, the ever-reliable Maggie Haberman. And anyone browsing Memeorandum this morning can find headlines like "The Blockbuster That Wasn't: Mueller Disappoints the Democrats" and "Mueller's Labored Performance Was a Departure From His Once-Fabled Stamina" (both NYT). There were some good substantive pieces (here, e.g.), but mostly it was optics über alles--from the same people who allowed themselves to be spectacularly bamboozled by Trump's bagman in the DOJ.

For whatever it's worth, I think these takes are mostly wrong. I watched the hearings knowing more than the average American, but not having read the report, and thought the litany of obstructive acts (with Mueller confirming in each case that yes, Trump did that) was pretty effective. In particular, the exchanges with Jeffries and Lieu (the latter noted by Yastreblyansky yesterday) were pretty damning:
Democratic Representative Hakeem Jeffries sought to demonstrate the disconnect by walking Mueller through the three-prong test....

“Yes,” Mueller said, confirming the obstructive act....

“True,” Mueller said, confirming the nexus to an official proceeding....

Jeffries then moved on to the third element, corrupt intent, and Mueller once again effectively affirmed the point....

Mueller, seeing the trick, tried to cut it off....But by then, the point was made: Mueller himself had acknowledged all the ways that Trump’s behavior met all three prongs of the test for obstruction of justice.
I don't know any more than Chuck Todd what the average viewer thinks of this, but I would guess that anyone watching the hearing (and I hope to god a lot of people did) understood, maybe for the first time, the seriousness of Trump's malfeasance.


Thus articles Better Press Corps, Please (Mueller Edition)

that is all articles Better Press Corps, Please (Mueller Edition) This time, hopefully can provide benefits to all of you. Okay, see you in another article posting.

You now read the article Better Press Corps, Please (Mueller Edition) with the link address https://welcometoamerican.blogspot.com/2019/07/better-press-corps-please-mueller.html

Subscribe to receive free email updates:

Related Posts :

0 Response to "Better Press Corps, Please (Mueller Edition)"

Post a Comment

Loading...