Rachel Maddow: "You have *got* to be kidding me."

[Miles Archer]

Rachel Maddow MSNBC
@maddow
you have *got* to be kidding me.

Link to tweet

House Dems Leaning Against Calling Stormy Daniels as a Witness
They’re investigating the president’s hush money payments. But, so far, lawmakers aren’t rushing to have the alleged recipient come to tell her story.
https://t.co/hT0VUVBtq8?amp=1

[2naSalit]

1. Might be

they really don't care to feed the hoopla monster. It would be too distracting with all the media attention going toward that issue rather than what is intended by the Committee which is to have the public's attention while they point out what a problem we have in the WH. They need to show everyone how close we are to losing our democracy.

[Hermit-The-Prog]

7. all the tv cameras would be there

She's perfect for getting the public to pay attention.

This is what is needed. You can't educate the electorate if the electorate is not paying attention.

[justgamma]

2. It might be because

they wouldn't want her to have to endure the Pukes badgering. You know that they would be merciless.

[Skittles]

4. from what I can tell, Ms. Daniels can handle anyone

[triron]

3. I have to agree with Rachel.

WTF are they thinking?!

[dansolo]

8. They don't want a circus

I'm a little sick of this issue getting as much attention as it does. The media would much rather talk about Trump's encounters with a porn star, than talk about his real crimes. Trump did not win the election because he paid hush money to a porn star. If people weren't affected by the "grab them by the ..." quote, then this wouldn't sway them either.

[EffieBlack]

10. You're dead spot on

It’s not just the media that wants a circus ...

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

15. Too late. The circus is in town.

The investigation into the Whitewater real estate development scandal was uninteresting to most, until, by some magic, Monica Lewinsky was associated with the investigation.

Then people started paying attention.

[triron]

18. News for you: Trump did NOT win the election.

[Midnight Writer]

30. The "circus" was what got Clinton impeached. No crime, but a consensual BJ got action.

[EffieBlack]

33. Clinton's impeachment was a farce, but it wasn't conducted like a circus.

They didn't even bring Monica in to testify ...

[renate]

5. Would her testimony be relevant?

Because if not, and if all they need is the money trail, there’s nothing to be gained by making the committee’s investigation seem prurient.

[wellst0nev0ter]

6. Yes, it gives voice to what is a slam dunk case

against 45. Have her air all the dirty laundry against that clown, because people can understand sex and coverups.

[dansolo]

9. Cover-ups for crimes is what people understand

All Trump covered up was his infidelity. There was no underlying crime. People won't care about that.

[EffieBlack]

11. Her testimony isn't needed for that

Having sex with a porn star isn’t a high crime or misdemeanor. Paying her to shut up about it isn’t either. What pushes this issue into impeachable offense territory is the motive behind the payment and they don’t need Stormy Daniels to prove it. She doesn’t even likely have the information they need on this since she probably wasn’t privy to their motivations.

A porn star testifying only satisfies a prurient interest but doesn’t get the Committee or country closer to the truth. Everyone already knows he had sex with her. The issue is what laws he broke afterward and they don’t need her there in in order to prove that. And nothing she could testify about from personal knowledge would prove that he should be impeached.

I’m not interested in a distracting circus, which her appearance in a hearing would be.

[wellst0nev0ter]

12. The problem lies in your last sentence

Republicans understand how to message and present issues in a way that riles up certain segments of voters and grab the attention of the media so that it stays in the news cycles.

Random congresscritters speaking about 45's hush money won't turn any eyes, but a porn star recounting the crime in her own words would certainly attract attention and embarrass 45.

Yet Dems think such theatrics are icky and are only focused on formal processes. So they fight with one hand tied behind their backs while the pukes continue to bring guns to knife fights.

Pukes know this, that's why they launched bullshit investigations into Hillary Clinton: to see what sticks. And the bullshit Benghazi probe uncovered the email servers, and that's what everyone's ended up talking about and that's what ultimately sank her presidential campaign.

I'm not saying we should play dirty exactly like the pukes, but we need to get better at playing the media game. Not having Stormy Daniels testify is insane and only serves to prove that Dems don't have the stomach to take down 45.

[EffieBlack]

13. Creating a distracting circus isn't effectively playing the media game

Stormy Daniels will definitely create a media circus but to what end?

Play this out with me ... What’s the point if her testimony? Is it to prove that Trump broke the law by paying her off? Her testimony doesn’t do that. All she can testify about is that she was paid and there’s already more than sufficient evidence to prove that, so her testimony isn’t needed.

Is it to show that Trump is a scumbag who has adulterous sex with porn stars? Everyone already knows that. I doubt that information will make a single person in America change their mind about him at this point.

Is it to make sure the hearing gets a lot of attention? Ok, but what’s the outcome that results from lots of people watching a porn star testify? If she testifies only about the relevant facts - getting a check from Trump - that will be boring and the hearing will be considered a dud. If she testifies about anything other than that - for example, the “affair” - that would be a complete distraction and not move the needle a smidge. But it would be the subject of breathless coverage not about Trump’s crimes but his sex life and I don’t even want to think about who would be dragged out of the muck to do color commentary.

I’m all about the Dems playing the media game. But parading Stormy Daniels up Independence Avenue into the Rayburn Building to testify before the House Judiciary Committee about nothing of any probative value isn’t about the Dems playing the media - it would be about the Dens getting played in and by the media. No wonder Rachel's upset that that might not happen.

No, thank you.

[wellst0nev0ter]

16. This is politics, not a court trial

We basically have 45 dead to rights on breaking campaign finance laws (or else Michael Cohen wouldn't be in jail.)

However, people keep treating 45 like he's not a criminal. Having a well known victim testify will change that narrative and put pressure on the puke stonewallers.

Also, you can't rule out Stormy providing new information. In any case, playing by Marquess of Queensbury rules is not going to get us anywhere.

[EffieBlack]

21. The Committee staff has no doubt already interviewed Stormy and know exactly what she would say

If she has new information, they know it.

Stormy has been all over television talking about Trump. Thinking that her saying the same thing again in a congressional will shift public opinion is wishful thinking.

[wellst0nev0ter]

23. Then there was no point having Mueller testify

Except they are putting a face and a voice to the allegations against dumb donald. People and the media respond to visuals, not reports. If a media circus can gin up public opinion against trump and for impeachment, then I'm all for it.

[StarfishSaver]

24. Stormy Daniels isn't Robert Mueller

But that said - I was one of those who pushed back against the hysteria over the possibility that Muller wouldn't testify in public.

[wellst0nev0ter]

25. Yeah, she'd be a better witness, imo

[StarfishSaver]

26. She'd be a more entertaining witness. Not a better witness

Too many people on DU seem to see all of this as a reality show that should be crafted for their entertainment and satisfaction, not to The outcome they claim to want. There's nothing Stormy Daniels could say that would provide any information the committee can't get elsewhere. But she might put on a good show and that's all that matters to some people.

But the people who want the show have already made up their minds about impeachment. The people who need to be convinced won't be convinced by the Stormy Daniels Show.

[wellst0nev0ter]

27. Why are you so allergic to a media circus?

These are extraordinary times and we need to leverage every card we have to get through the media filters. Playing nice and playing polite is not going to get you anywhere these days.

Edit: Meanwhile this is how trump is manipulating the media. And you want to bring a butter knife to a gunfight???

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100212463378

[StarfishSaver]

28. Because media circuses don't get us any closer to where we need to be.

The obsession with that kind of spectacle over substance is one of the reasons we're where we are today.

Fortunately, Pelosi, Nadler and the Judiciary Committee know this and are going to do it the right way rather than falling prey to those clamoring for them to turn this into a hot mess.

[wellst0nev0ter]

29. Our side has not pulled any media circuses

And trump looks like he's about to skate. Haven't you noticed?

[StarfishSaver]

32. You think the way to keep Trump from skating is to launch our own media circus?

[Wounded Bear]

14. If you call her, you probably have to call Avenatti...

[EffieBlack]

22. Yup.

As I said, a circus.

[milestogo]

17. The public enjoyed Ken Starr's report but would have preferred a movie of it.

[uponit7771]

19. I agree with Pelosi TESTIMONY DURING THE ELECTION YEAR !!! Why is this so hard, not now ... it will

... fall flat !!

[triron]

20. What will?

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

31. WTF?!

Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!! or
Elizabeth & Bernie 2020!!
Either way, welcome to the revolution!!!