Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

EffieBlack

(14,249 posts)
Wed Jul 24, 2019, 10:55 PM Jul 2019

A sure sign that Mueller delivered and Democrats kicked ass today:

The number of “concern” threads here about how “frail” and “ineffective” and “complicit Mueller was, how the Democrats blew it, and what a dud the hearings were.

Transparent as hell.

69 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
A sure sign that Mueller delivered and Democrats kicked ass today: (Original Post) EffieBlack Jul 2019 OP
Oh you know it!! bluestarone Jul 2019 #1
Please feel free... JoeOtterbein Jul 2019 #2
Why would you assume my OP refers to you? EffieBlack Jul 2019 #25
Whew! JoeOtterbein Jul 2019 #27
This message was self-deleted by its author SouthernProgressive Jul 2019 #47
Why would she name you Effie? tavernier Jul 2019 #67
My nickname, since elementary school, is: JoeOtterbein Jul 2019 #69
Yes THey Did Six Times Over Me. Jul 2019 #3
How did the Democrats 'kick ass?' leftstreet Jul 2019 #4
This is all part of the process, before there can be an impeachment a case has to made to ... marble falls Jul 2019 #6
You signed up to DU in 2005 True Dough Jul 2019 #17
LOL leftstreet Jul 2019 #22
Indeed. drray23 Jul 2019 #5
I was very pessimistic going in, but agree Dems kicked ass. They were prepared. Hoyt Jul 2019 #7
they were very prepared and did a great job scarytomcat Jul 2019 #45
I just now wanted to kick Brian Williams' ass The Velveteen Ocelot Jul 2019 #8
Me Too Me. Jul 2019 #15
He's STILL at it. The Velveteen Ocelot Jul 2019 #20
Gerstein is a hack from Politico, DeminPennswoods Jul 2019 #26
I wanted to puke but my stomach is already empty. BigmanPigman Jul 2019 #31
Same here. He reminded us how slow and superficial he really is. Thanks for mentioning it. n/t Judi Lynn Jul 2019 #34
Williams is going to take a face mashing for that uponit7771 Jul 2019 #40
I think he was getting tired towards the end of the second hearing scarytomcat Jul 2019 #46
K & R Iliyah Jul 2019 #9
Rachel, too, was pounding the issue of his frailty and implying incompetence. JudyM Jul 2019 #57
Transparent in the extreme. NanceGreggs Jul 2019 #10
Yeah, those who disagree with you have been working to undermine Dems all along, me since 2001 Jersey Devil Jul 2019 #11
18 years of waiting in the weeds, eh Jersey Devil? True Dough Jul 2019 #18
If I wasn't talking about you, I wasn't talking about you EffieBlack Jul 2019 #23
B+. I wasn't expecting a slam dunk. oasis Jul 2019 #12
K & R mia Jul 2019 #13
I don't agree. If someone watched the entire hearing and focused on ecstatic Jul 2019 #14
You got your marching orders, ecstatic True Dough Jul 2019 #21
So substance doesn't matter? brer cat Jul 2019 #51
I remember when more than one commentator said Hillary beat Trump in substance in the debates StarfishSaver Jul 2019 #56
Actually not really qazplm135 Jul 2019 #59
Care to post some of those studies? StarfishSaver Jul 2019 #62
No, I wouldn't be hard pressed qazplm135 Jul 2019 #64
Thanks. This is very interesting StarfishSaver Jul 2019 #65
jurors are selected qazplm135 Jul 2019 #66
I hear you and appreciate your expertise StarfishSaver Jul 2019 #68
People were expecting a TV trial and were disappointed at the lack of fireworks. The Velveteen Ocelot Jul 2019 #16
You're right! Perception is reality in this country. nt ecstatic Jul 2019 #24
You don't take differing points of view well do you Beringia Jul 2019 #19
I thought it was great. MuseRider Jul 2019 #28
Recommended. H2O Man Jul 2019 #29
Yup ismnotwasm Jul 2019 #30
Yes. I didn't see the hearing, came here and saw concern threads. betsuni Jul 2019 #32
Yes. You know, I watched much of the hearings. Had a meeting in the morning, but PatrickforO Jul 2019 #33
Excellent observation Ponietz Jul 2019 #35
Some things age well Roy Rolling Jul 2019 #36
Good point! mcar Jul 2019 #54
I liked the part wher a Republican pressed Mueller if Trump can be charged with crimes tirebiter Jul 2019 #37
It's a sad day when performance is presented as more important malaise Jul 2019 #38
+1, for people who wanted to push the narrative Red Don is a crook it was a slam dunk ... for people uponit7771 Jul 2019 #41
+ 1000 n/t MBS Jul 2019 #42
+1 I kept thinking is anyone in this country interested in substance? treestar Jul 2019 #44
THIS malaise Jul 2019 #50
amen. nt Baltimike Jul 2019 #39
Even more transparent is when people try to pit DUers against each other. n/t demmiblue Jul 2019 #43
Mueller acknowledged statements.. Maxheader Jul 2019 #48
There's no denying that as feeble and guarded as Mueller appeared yesterday, he delivered the goods onetexan Jul 2019 #49
I find Mueller guilty... of not being a natural public speaker. backscatter712 Jul 2019 #52
One OP during the first hearing mcar Jul 2019 #53
I hope a certain obscene poster doesn't show up here. rzemanfl Jul 2019 #55
He did what he was allowed to do. He was muzzled secondwind Jul 2019 #58
He did seem sort of frail, but I think that was because we built him up in our minds before hand. Afromania Jul 2019 #60
Great job by the Democrats Progressive dog Jul 2019 #61
I feel like we win every time, but it isn't always recognized. Bonx Jul 2019 #63

Response to JoeOtterbein (Reply #2)

Me.

(35,454 posts)
3. Yes THey Did Six Times Over
Wed Jul 24, 2019, 10:58 PM
Jul 2019

And what is the point of those threads, who exactly are they rooting for and supporting?

marble falls

(56,358 posts)
6. This is all part of the process, before there can be an impeachment a case has to made to ...
Wed Jul 24, 2019, 11:03 PM
Jul 2019

Congress. This is part of the gathering of evidence to support articles of impeachment, investigation and a case before the indictment.

Its a process not a mob action.

True Dough

(17,091 posts)
17. You signed up to DU in 2005
Wed Jul 24, 2019, 11:18 PM
Jul 2019

and posted more than 30,000 times only now to reveal that you're a non-conformist? Talk about patience!

drray23

(7,587 posts)
5. Indeed.
Wed Jul 24, 2019, 11:01 PM
Jul 2019

Either these folks have a hidden agenda or they are incredibly inept at understanding the political implications of what happened.

 

Hoyt

(54,770 posts)
7. I was very pessimistic going in, but agree Dems kicked ass. They were prepared.
Wed Jul 24, 2019, 11:09 PM
Jul 2019

The morning started off badly when Mueller started out saying there was no conspiracy/cooperation and Barr didn’t interfere. Dems kept on and were able to really emphasize Obstruction.

The afternoon was outstanding. They branded, in spite of what Mueller said earlier, trump as unethical, immoral, unpatriotic, and quite likely criminal. And, they emphasized the Russian junk is still going on and will affect 2020, and trump is just joking about it. Mueller jumped on him too.

Outstanding effort.

The Velveteen Ocelot

(115,276 posts)
8. I just now wanted to kick Brian Williams' ass
Wed Jul 24, 2019, 11:10 PM
Jul 2019

when he started his show about how weak and frail and old Mueller seemed. He's still at it.

Me.

(35,454 posts)
15. Me Too
Wed Jul 24, 2019, 11:16 PM
Jul 2019

Watch..tomorrow when he finds out the really smart kids are saying differently, he'll change his tune.

Iliyah

(25,111 posts)
9. K & R
Wed Jul 24, 2019, 11:10 PM
Jul 2019

And corporate media supported the RW talking points.

Republicans on committee made fools of themselves. But, corporate media and few on here focused on the Democrats and Mueller in a negative way.

Sad.

Jersey Devil

(9,863 posts)
11. Yeah, those who disagree with you have been working to undermine Dems all along, me since 2001
Wed Jul 24, 2019, 11:14 PM
Jul 2019

It's all a big Republican conspiracy. That's why a lot of us have been hanging on here as posters for almost 20 years.

True Dough

(17,091 posts)
18. 18 years of waiting in the weeds, eh Jersey Devil?
Wed Jul 24, 2019, 11:22 PM
Jul 2019

And it's your inability to accept that Mueller delivered the goods flawlessly that shows your true colors? Well, time to give up the independent thinking there, buddy! Get back in line!


ecstatic

(32,566 posts)
14. I don't agree. If someone watched the entire hearing and focused on
Wed Jul 24, 2019, 11:15 PM
Jul 2019

substance only, of course it would be a clear win for us. But most Americans have not done that. Hell, I didn't do that. I DVR'd the entire day of testimony but only ended up watching about 20-30 minutes before I had to turn it off.

I know a thing or two about perception, and the segment I saw wasn't particularly helpful. Acknowledging that some parts of his testimony did not go over well doesn't automatically mean I have sinister intentions, and I will NEVER give a false opinion to make others happy. If others can look at the same clip and come to a different conclusion, that's fine too. Again, it's great that we have so many optimists who can help keep everything in perspective. But realists have a role too.

Also, I think a lot of people are frustrated by Mueller's missing the forest for the trees. He was so concerned about being fair and pleasing republicans (who didn't give 2 shits about showing him any respect) and that caused him to be less forthcoming, IMO. No biggie, it's only our democracy at stake!

True Dough

(17,091 posts)
21. You got your marching orders, ecstatic
Wed Jul 24, 2019, 11:25 PM
Jul 2019

No sense in trying to provide rationale for going against the grain here. Be a good DU Dem and repeat after me, "Robert Mueller led us to the promised land today."

Donny's surely polishing off his resignation letter as I type this!

brer cat

(24,401 posts)
51. So substance doesn't matter?
Thu Jul 25, 2019, 09:10 AM
Jul 2019

After watching less than 10%, you concluded he "wasn't particularly helpful." If you watched Hank Aaron strike out at one at-bat, would your perception be that he wasn't a particularly good ball player?

Performance over substance is for the movies, not real life.

 

StarfishSaver

(18,486 posts)
56. I remember when more than one commentator said Hillary beat Trump in substance in the debates
Thu Jul 25, 2019, 09:33 AM
Jul 2019

But Trump got more style points, therefore they declared him the winner.

Same mentality.

And we wonder why we're where we are

qazplm135

(7,447 posts)
59. Actually not really
Thu Jul 25, 2019, 09:51 AM
Jul 2019

Any trial lawyer says the most substantive or factual legal argument isn't what sways the jury, the most confident one does. Body language, tone of voice, apparent confidence, dress all matter more than what is actually said.

It shouldn't but study after study shows it does.

 

StarfishSaver

(18,486 posts)
62. Care to post some of those studies?
Thu Jul 25, 2019, 02:15 PM
Jul 2019

And while jurors are sometimes swayed by theatrics, I think you'd be hard-pressed to find many really effective trial attorneys who will agree that in every case "Body language, tone of voice, apparent confidence, dress all matter more than what is actually said."

In the real world, most cases don't turn on how the attorneys look and sound. Among other things, the evidence DOES play a huge role, what is said is significant, and cases don't always end at trial but are often decided on appeal where the only thing that matters is what's in the transcript and record while the attorneys' demeanor is pretty much irrelevant.

qazplm135

(7,447 posts)
64. No, I wouldn't be hard pressed
Thu Jul 25, 2019, 03:48 PM
Jul 2019

I've spent several years teaching courtroom tactics and strategies "in the real world" and longer trying cases on both sides "in the real world." I've had juries interviewed after trials on multiple occasions to see what they focused on. As often as not, they would comment on what an attorney was wearing, how confident they sounded, as much on any piece of evidence.

https://atcounseltable.wordpress.com/2013/08/20/five-psychological-principles-of-jury-persuasion/

"The message here is that jurors absorb what they see exponentially better than what they simply hear. Mauet writes, 'When the medium is oral testimony, clear, simple common English with a smooth, confident delivery and reinforcing kinesic and paralinguistic cues significantly affect how jurors receive, accept, and retain the communication. . . Since communication is approximately 60 percent kinetic (appearance, gestures, body movement), 30 percent paralinguistic (voice inflection), and only 10 percent word content, trial lawyers must learn to read the kinesic and paralinguistic cues that jurors send during voir dire, witnesses send while testifying, and lawyers send throughout a trial.' (Id. at 380.)"
Citing Thomas Mauet’s Fundamentals of Trial Techniques

Right there...60 percent is physical
30 percent is inflection
10 percent is actual content.

https://www.nytimes.com/1994/11/29/science/study-finds-jurors-often-hear-evidence-with-closed-minds.html

"These jurors decide on a version of events based on a preliminary story they find convincing, often at the time of the opening arguments, which then colors their interpretation of the evidence so much that they seize on whatever fits their verdict and discount the rest. Such jurors tend to make up their minds far earlier than others, and by the time they enter the jury room for deliberation they cannot be budged."

The attorney who looks the part, who speaks in "bright colors," simply, and confidently will almost ALWAYS win over an attorney with better facts and arguments but poorer appearance and delivery.

I'm not talking about "theatrics." I'm talking about tone of voice, confidence, appearance, and proper courtroom movement. Excessive theatrics is usually a bad idea, particularly if it takes you out of your range of normal actions.

Having said that, there is a REASON two of the top trial coaches in the country are former actors. And yes, having done my fair share of cases, much of what goes on in a courtroom involves a level of acting and performance, particularly opening statements and closing arguments.

https://www.thejuryexpert.com/2012/03/vocal-pitch-in-the-courtroom/
"As a nonverbal communication cue, voice has been shown to make a difference in people’s perceptions of speakers (Tigue, Borak, O’Connor, Schandl & Feinberg, in press). Guerrero and Hecht (2008) argue that a vocal attractiveness stereotype exists among listeners. People tend to believe that, “what sounds beautiful is good” (p.155). Other empirical explorations of the attractive voice stereotype have found that attractive voices make a person seem more powerful, strong, assertive and dominant (Guerrero & Hecht, 2008)."

http://www.abajournal.com/voice/article/the-jury-trial-trying-facts-or-telling-stories

I'll spoil it for you, telling a story beats listing facts. Jurors get bored easily, and they tune out quickly, and they make snap judgments. So if your first two minutes aren't sharp, if your suit is wrinkled and ill-fitting, and if your voice isn't strong and confident, it won't matter what comes next.

http://cornelllawreview.org/files/2018/04/St.EveEssay-1.pdf
Presentation by attorneys was the most positive and most negative responses. Jurors cared about eye contact, being more personable to the jury, various criticisms on body language (e.g. that attorney crossed their arms too much), etc. Again, in various ways jurors respond to the things I listed above both negatively and positively and reward each side accordingly.

https://books.google.com/books?id=SwhGiWNFV18C&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false



 

StarfishSaver

(18,486 posts)
65. Thanks. This is very interesting
Thu Jul 25, 2019, 04:23 PM
Jul 2019

And while I agree that a more confident presentation can give one an advantage, attorneys presentations do not necessarily determine outcome. As I said, there are too many other factors at play, including the judge, jury instructions, the evidence, and, very important, other jurors who aren't as easily swayed since, as one of your cited pieces notes, a certain type of juror with flawed decision-making abilities may be susceptible to such dynamics but a majority isn't.

So, I sti disagree with your assessment, but appreciate you posting these cites, which provide interesting food for thought.





qazplm135

(7,447 posts)
66. jurors are selected
Thu Jul 25, 2019, 04:39 PM
Jul 2019

that process produces types of jurors. Even in military courts-martial that don't have the same type of selection process we see the same things.

I'm sorry but all things being equal presentation matters far more than facts.

If it's a slam dunk case it's usually a guilty plea, so most contested cases are not that way.

Thus, it's a battle of competing facts and competing experts with a factfinder that is not selected to be the most discerning, or the most attentive, or the most intelligent.

The judge matters a little bit, but not as much as you think in most cases. Usually the judge comes into play with less experienced counsel more than experienced counsel.

Presentation is a LARGE part of what goes on in a trial. The longer the trial, the less facts the panel really remembers. What sticks is perception.

The Velveteen Ocelot

(115,276 posts)
16. People were expecting a TV trial and were disappointed at the lack of fireworks.
Wed Jul 24, 2019, 11:17 PM
Jul 2019

It wasn't entertaining enough for the folks whose idea of a great presidential candidate was Michael Avenatti.

MuseRider

(34,058 posts)
28. I thought it was great.
Wed Jul 24, 2019, 11:52 PM
Jul 2019

I think these days if people are not screaming and getting results that are often questionable a lot of people are not satisfied. I like a good screaming match as well as the next person and I like people getting emotional and excited about things as well but there is a time for quiet deliberation and I thought today was great. We got confirmation of the most needed, basic info. We go from there. I have learned patience as I have grown older, I think we must be patient with those who have not yet found that.

betsuni

(25,128 posts)
32. Yes. I didn't see the hearing, came here and saw concern threads.
Thu Jul 25, 2019, 12:40 AM
Jul 2019

Thought I'd check Splinter News, my go-to site (among others) to find out how Democrat-haters are bashing that day. The Mueller hearing: "This Was a Colossal Waste of Time."

PatrickforO

(14,516 posts)
33. Yes. You know, I watched much of the hearings. Had a meeting in the morning, but
Thu Jul 25, 2019, 12:55 AM
Jul 2019

saw most of it.

I didn't think it was a 'dud' or a 'flop' or any other name media heads spun out.

Mueller did well and the Dems did well. Yes, the GOP tried to make it a circus, but the Dems clearly established, in televised testimony, that the report presents evidence of obstruction of justice on five occasions (that's what they had time for - there's actually ten), and that there is also evidence of witness tampering.

We also heard Mueller talk about how Russia interfered in our '16 election, and how Trump first asked for, and then gratefully used that interference, and how important it is we harden our elections.

Then, McConnell, with the help of the traitor Cindy Hyde-Smith, who objected to the bipartisan legislation.

No - the Democrats did kick ass, because they awakened at least the Americans who watched. Besides, the House has a plan. They are going to subpoena McGahn and start getting that word out. This whole thing is just that - a nationally televised platform to alert Americans who haven't been paying attention to what is really going on.

Roy Rolling

(6,853 posts)
36. Some things age well
Thu Jul 25, 2019, 01:48 AM
Jul 2019

Like fine wine, Mueller's testimony is just starting to ferment. His faults will be forgotten and excused by reasonable people. I mean, how many Republicans want to start criticizing him because he appeared old and weak? Please, try it.

His inability to be a media hack added to his credibility, and contrasted to the fast-talking Republicans trying to score political points. He looked like an aging lion with a lifetime of successful battles to his credit. Republicans looked like a bunch of hyenas nipping at his heels.

Or am I being affected by the new “Lion King” movie?

Regardless, there was nothing memorable about Republicans putting people to sleep with their Steele dossier stories. Man, their act was stale.

tirebiter

(2,520 posts)
37. I liked the part wher a Republican pressed Mueller if Trump can be charged with crimes
Thu Jul 25, 2019, 05:55 AM
Jul 2019

When he leaves office and Mueller very quickly and clearly said “yes” twice. There was no walking back on that. Not even a little bit. I understand what a Pelosi figured out a lot sooner. Impeaching him denies the opportunity to put him in jail for crimes against the state. That’d be real justice.

uponit7771

(90,225 posts)
41. +1, for people who wanted to push the narrative Red Don is a crook it was a slam dunk ... for people
Thu Jul 25, 2019, 06:45 AM
Jul 2019

... who wanted Mueller to fly in with a cape they didn't like it.

treestar

(82,383 posts)
44. +1 I kept thinking is anyone in this country interested in substance?
Thu Jul 25, 2019, 07:25 AM
Jul 2019

When is the pendulum swinging back on this, because it is getting ridiculous. Reality is not optional and not everything is show. We have got to quit being so shallow.

Maxheader

(4,366 posts)
48. Mueller acknowledged statements..
Thu Jul 25, 2019, 07:44 AM
Jul 2019

concerning cheetox attempts to have him fired...and the dude being asked to create false files, that quit?
And mueller always referred back to the report..
After having laid the ground rules..no detours from the
report..no indictment, regardless of the findings..subtle hints of lies by mr. zero..

Won't be enough for the wingers though...no innuendos allowed, no 'if there's smoke there's fire"

onetexan

(12,994 posts)
49. There's no denying that as feeble and guarded as Mueller appeared yesterday, he delivered the goods
Thu Jul 25, 2019, 07:46 AM
Jul 2019

Dems got what they wanted - to let the American public hear from the horse's mouth that the guy we have in the WH is a crook. The repugs coming at Mueller like a pack of hyenas in a concerted attempt to discredit him and change the narrative from the resounding message of obstruction by bringing up Christopher Steele, dossier, Hillary, etc. did not work. The same tactics which they tried with Hillary, with Michael Cohen, when LowBarr was testifying..is clearly the same game plan - speak fast and yell loudly to intimidate the witness, discredit him by bringing up distractions, and make him out to be the bad guy coming after 45.

I'm glad to see some of the headlines spoke the truth. Dems need to deliver a relentless campaign against 45 and paint the GOP as enabling a dangerously crooked, fascist president planted there by the foreign actors. This is the only way we can get rid of him next year. Beginning impeachment process to mark 45 for the loathsome fraud that he is would help tremendously.

backscatter712

(26,355 posts)
52. I find Mueller guilty... of not being a natural public speaker.
Thu Jul 25, 2019, 09:11 AM
Jul 2019

Which is OK. Neither am I.

Pay attention to the facts he gave, not the propagandizing pieces of shit screaming about how "guarded" he looked.

mcar

(42,210 posts)
53. One OP during the first hearing
Thu Jul 25, 2019, 09:20 AM
Jul 2019

talked about it being a disappointment. Even though the author wasn't watching.

Afromania

(2,767 posts)
60. He did seem sort of frail, but I think that was because we built him up in our minds before hand.
Thu Jul 25, 2019, 10:16 AM
Jul 2019

He did his job exactly as it was prescribed, no more and no less. All of that information has been collected, sorted, categorized and put together in a report that is just as damning today as it was yesterday and the day before. Muller not having stage presence has nothing to do with any of those facts. Which for those not paying attention were all confirmed to be 100% true yesterday.

Progressive dog

(6,861 posts)
61. Great job by the Democrats
Thu Jul 25, 2019, 01:59 PM
Jul 2019

on both committees. I watched much of both and saw many memorable moments, most of which are appearing in short clips all over the news. Mueller's report was devastating and the Democrats gave him a chance to defend it. He did fine.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»A sure sign that Mueller ...