General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsA 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.
bluestarone
(16,720 posts)transparent it is!
JoeOtterbein
(7,697 posts)...to name me Effie!
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)If its not about you, its not about you.
JoeOtterbein
(7,697 posts)I was hoping that!
See:
"Bologna"
[link:https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=12314231|
Please tell me it was not you!
Response to JoeOtterbein (Reply #2)
SouthernProgressive This message was self-deleted by its author.
tavernier
(12,322 posts)Your name is Joe.
JoeOtterbein
(7,697 posts)Otter!
Me.
(35,454 posts)And what is the point of those threads, who exactly are they rooting for and supporting?
leftstreet
(36,078 posts)Did they announce they're starting impeachment inquiries?
marble falls
(56,358 posts)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)and posted more than 30,000 times only now to reveal that you're a non-conformist? Talk about patience!
leftstreet
(36,078 posts)drray23
(7,587 posts)Either these folks have a hidden agenda or they are incredibly inept at understanding the political implications of what happened.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)The morning started off badly when Mueller started out saying there was no conspiracy/cooperation and Barr didnt 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.
scarytomcat
(1,706 posts)of execution
The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,276 posts)when he started his show about how weak and frail and old Mueller seemed. He's still at it.
Me.
(35,454 posts)Watch..tomorrow when he finds out the really smart kids are saying differently, he'll change his tune.
The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,276 posts)DeminPennswoods
(15,246 posts)but disappointed in Bash and Figluizzi.
BigmanPigman
(51,430 posts)Judi Lynn
(160,217 posts)uponit7771
(90,225 posts)scarytomcat
(1,706 posts)but he hung in there
a REAL patriot
Iliyah
(25,111 posts)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.
JudyM
(29,122 posts)NanceGreggs
(27,813 posts)Jersey Devil
(9,863 posts)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)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!
EffieBlack
(14,249 posts)So no need to be so defensive
oasis
(49,151 posts)Thank you!
ecstatic
(32,566 posts)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)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)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)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)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)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)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 Mauets 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 peoples perceptions of speakers (Tigue, Borak, OConnor, 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)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)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.
StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)I just see it differently.
But it's all good.
The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,276 posts)It wasn't entertaining enough for the folks whose idea of a great presidential candidate was Michael Avenatti.
ecstatic
(32,566 posts)Beringia
(4,314 posts)MuseRider
(34,058 posts)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.
H2O Man
(73,323 posts)ismnotwasm
(41,919 posts)I literally had to just do other things than read that crap. It was annoying
betsuni
(25,128 posts)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)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.
Ponietz
(2,904 posts)Roy Rolling
(6,853 posts)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.
mcar
(42,210 posts)tirebiter
(2,520 posts)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. Thatd be real justice.
malaise
(267,810 posts)than facts
uponit7771
(90,225 posts)... who wanted Mueller to fly in with a cape they didn't like it.
treestar
(82,383 posts)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.
We have got to quit being so shallow.
Baltimike
(4,126 posts)demmiblue
(36,745 posts)Maxheader
(4,366 posts)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)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)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)talked about it being a disappointment. Even though the author wasn't watching.
rzemanfl
(29,540 posts)secondwind
(16,903 posts)from the start.
Afromania
(2,767 posts)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)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.