Just what is her deal, anyway? Is she just the right-wing attack dog needed to balance the show?

She seems to have taken a far right turn since then.

I got married in December in Arizona. Turns out our photographers were also the photographers at her wedding.

and welcome to DU!

Why does she constantly get to read from, rely so heavily on notes?. And notes that quote RW propaganda as fact to boot... It's creepy And makes McCain look like just a RW robotic mouthpiece..

She seems very angry and unhappy. It seems like a burden for her to have to push the right wing talking points everyday.

We're LONG PAST trying to dig out the why and wherefor of what the GOP's motives are. In this case, as in all of them, she's just another spewing gosport on the skin of a fart-filled dirigible that IS the GOP.

Edit to add: A 'Gosport Tube' was a voice tube used by flight instructors in the early days of military aviation to give instructions and directions to their students.

I've never seen her get a hit, just one strike out after another.

Congressman Schiff is a man who has a degree from Stanford, a degree from Harvard Law School, and is a former Federal Prosecutor. Does she really think that she, Meghan McCain, who would not have this job but for being John McCain's daughter, is going to corner Adam Schiff. She is a silly and not very bright person.

Last edited Thu Mar 1, 2018, 10:44 PM - Edit history (1)

Every time there is a Dem on she tries a gotcha question. Plus she has to read her question. She’s not knowledgeable enough to speak without notes. When Dick Durbin was in she called him a liar in the middle of her prepared question. Check The View’s FB page, viewers are clamoring for her to be fired.

I’m sure Adam would be happy to draw you a picture.

She blamed a Bannon comment on him.
Then shot the "evil eye" at him when he corrected her.

Maybe she wants a position in the Trump administration?

Then ask your questions.

That should answer about 9 out of 10 of them.

that looked like a performance geared to get a reaction from a certain segment. Almost as if she were playing to some voters.

Somehow I suspect she will be running after daddy dies.

And it didn't seem like anyone on the panel looked like the matter was clarified for them.

This is the problem with a lot of these issues. It's complicated, and the general public (who are busy working, taking care of kids, taking care of themselves and their homes, doing lawn work, going to doctors, etc.) just doesn't understand anything but the surface level stuff. They watch snippets of news here and there, so get only soundbites.

He's saying...it's not Mueller's job to work out a detailed timeline of everything and present it to the public. It's the House of Reps job to figure out what happened, to the extent they can, based on "clear and convincing evidence," and present that to the public.

EVEN IF what happened does not result in indictments. There can be clear and convincing evidence of a crime, but that's not enough for an indictment. But it is enough to present a timeline of what happened, to the public.

Mueller's job is different from Congress' job.

Meghan is saying that unless it results in an indictment, it's not true or it doesn't matter. Schiff was disagreeing, because the standard, and the job, in the House is different. It can be true and relevant, but still not be a sure enough thing for an indictment.

That's my understanding.

I can understand it in my head, but it's hard to explain it. (I worked as a paralegal for years, so I understand it from that point of view.)

Mueller issues indictments. The legal standard for an indictment is "proof beyond a reasonable doubt." We are all familiar with that term. Criminal verdicts must be based on "proof beyond a reasonable doubt." O J Simpson was acquitted because the jury did not find he was guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt."

But when you go to CIVIL court, the proof standard is "probable." When you have the balance scales, the proof of guilt has to tilt on the scale just enough more so than the other scale. That would be like the "clear and convincing evidence" that Schiff is speaking of. This is why the family of Nicole Simpson won in CIVIL court, when they sued O J Simpson for killing Nicole. The jury found that it was more likely than not that he killed her (and the Goldman man). Actually, "clear and convincing evidence" sounds like it may be a stronger standard, but you get the idea.

Mueller will just issue indictments. I didn't know that he wasn't going to issue a full report on everything (to be released to the public), but Schiff is saying that Mueller doesn't have to issue a report to the public and tell the story of everything. That's not what he was tasked with doing.

Schiff is saying, seems to me, that what the House of Rep is supposed to do is get to the bottom of things and report to the people what happened. (Whether the Russians hacked emails or voting registration rolls, whether the Trump team worked with them, etc.) I don't know that the House is looking at everything, though (like Flynn).

and then at cpac (modern day American Bund gathering) he spewed bile at McCain

that her right wing "friends" now watch the show and want her to be the champion for them even if she's anti-trump. They may be anti-trump too but still want their voices heard.

No offense to Valley girls.

who is a total idiot.

...corner Representative "Always has his ducks in line" Schiff. Certainly not Ms. McCain, who is no where near as smart as she thinks she is.