And there was dunking throughout the realm.On substance, Democrats got what they wanted: that Mueller didn't charge Pres. Trump because of the OLC guidance, that he could be indicted after he leaves office, among other things. But on optics, this was a disaster. #MuellerHearings
— Chuck Todd (@chucktodd) July 24, 2019
"On substance, Hitler was a disaster. But on optics, those parades and captivating speeches were winners!" - Chuck Todd's grandfather, 1945. pic.twitter.com/UfSJArKy7p
— Kurt Eichenwald (@kurteichenwald) July 24, 2019
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:On haircuts, Chuck Todd got what he wanted: that his barber didn't charge him. But on optics, this was a disaster.#youranalysisisgarbage pic.twitter.com/bssASCtErh
— Mr. Hamburger Buns (@mrhamburgerbuns) July 24, 2019
Trump gets mad when a reporter asks him if he's concerned about getting indicted after he leaves office, says "WikiLeaks is a hoax just like everything else" and calls the reporter "fake news" pic.twitter.com/fwAqhOZv1Z
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) July 24, 2019
But it wasn't just Todd. There was, of course, the ever-reliable Maggie Haberman.Terrible optics for the Democrats. https://t.co/RxSBZqWDDN
— Crabby Tom Hilton (@TVHilton) July 24, 2019
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.If only @maggieNYT and @adamgoldmanNYT had some role in shaping tomorrow's news cycle. pic.twitter.com/q2rdl8xjcJ
— (((James Acton))) (@james_acton32) July 24, 2019
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....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.
“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.
ETA: I agree with Yastreblyansky's take on how it went:
So my thought, as it went on, was that a good deal was being accomplished: that the Democrats were clearly laying out a sequence of high crimes and misdemeanors, the charges Mueller was unwilling to make himself (or even describe in any way, because of his bizarrely strict concept of his duty), showing that they were nevertheless all implicitly part of the Report, as Mueller was generally unable to deny.
No comments:
Post a Comment