The following podcast contains advertising to access an ad-free version of the LawFair

podcast become a material supporter of LawFair at patreon.com slash LawFair.

That's patreon.com slash LawFair.

Also, check out LawFair's other podcast offerings, rational security, chatter, LawFair

no bull and the aftermath.

For Democrats, it's to shift the public's perception about how problematic what came out

in the report is.

I think for Republicans, it's to try to shift perceptions towards this idea that, you know,

this isn't actually that big of a deal.

That sort of thing.

And so, I think it also reflects to some degree people's beliefs about how successful

members will be at coordinating on a single message.

And I think a focus on, say, just yes or no questions, like, Komi suggested in his Law

Fair piece.

If that's your strategy, it's like a little bit easier to get members to just stick

to the script if you tell them, you know, everyone's just going to ask yes or no questions.

And I think if you're concerned about the degree to which Mueller is pretty unlikely to go

outside the bounds of the report, focusing on yes or no questions might be a safer bet.

But I think that's also less likely to produce the kind of dramatic moments that some people

think might be necessary to really reshape the narrative.

And so, I think that they're just different ways, even if you share the goal of getting

a change in the public's perceptions of the Mueller report, they're just different ways

...