The Official Mueller Testimony Thread

  
By:  badfish-hd-h-u  •  4 months ago  •  498 comments

The Official Mueller Testimony Thread

Well so far Most of the answers Have been "Not in my Purview." "I rely on the report." "I Do not recall".  

512

What have you learned so far? Anyone curious to why Robert Mueller wasn't familiar with Fusion GPS?


Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
smarty_function_ntUser_is_admin: user_id parameter required
Find text within the comments Find 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
1  author  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh    4 months ago

I learned Robert Mueller doesn't know who Fusion GPS was or who Glen Simpson is. 

Strange....

384

 
 
 
katrix
1.1  katrix  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @1    4 months ago

Interesting ... kind of like how Trump, who has "one of the greatest memories of all time" claimed to not recall anything when he was interviewed during the investigation.

It's amazing how often people who are questioned suddenly lose their memories.

 
 
 
Ronin2
1.1.1  Ronin2  replied to  katrix @1.1    4 months ago

Yes, but heir Mueller is supposed to be made of much better moral fiber than Trump.

 
 
 
WallyW
1.1.2  WallyW  replied to  katrix @1.1    4 months ago

Yeah, I remember that Hillary had some severe memory loss much of the time.

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.1.3  Tessylo  replied to  Ronin2 @1.1.1    4 months ago

I think you meant Herr, not heir, but I understand.  jrSmiley_82_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.2  Vic Eldred  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @1    4 months ago

You are getting too good at this. I was going to do an article on this, but I guess I can add my impressions here.

Today we finally heard from Robert Mueller and what is now obvious is why he really didn't want to testify and who convinced him to do so.

Mueller looked like he could use a hearing aid, a cup of coffee and maybe even a seeing eye dog. He seemed confused and lost. It's no wonder somebody was sent with him. We can now assume it was the biased staffers who ran the the investigation and it was they who wrote and leaked the letter to the AG. It was the likes of Andrew Weissmann that investigated all things Trump, disregarding FBI abuses and Clinton campaign & DNC conspiring to obtain opposition research along the way and then waiting for the dems to gain control of the House to finally hand in their report. It was they that wrote volume 2, which was totally inappropriate, but typical Weissmann.

If Nadler or the dems want to hold more such hearings, I think I speak for all Trump supporters, WE ARE ALL FOR IT!

 
 
 
dennis smith
1.2.1  dennis smith  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.2    4 months ago

For two years the dems and their sheep ahve praised Mueller and said his report would be the end all. Then they did their usual flip flop and said the hearing would be the final word. Now they are changing again  saying his testimony conclusively shows Trump obstructed justice when it shows nothing of the sort. 

The same people will continue to pursue this until the 2020 election not realizing that the public is tired of the left playing politics. If they keep it up it may mean 4 more years of Trump as POTUS and both houses of Congress having Republican majorities. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.2.2  Vic Eldred  replied to  dennis smith @1.2.1    4 months ago
Now they are changing again  saying his testimony conclusively shows Trump obstructed justice when it shows nothing of the sort. 

Maybe if they keep reading it over & over again, they'll find something. A bunch of liberal justices once found a "right of privacy" buried deep within the Constitution under similar circumstances.

 
 
 
GaJenn78
1.2.3  GaJenn78  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.2    4 months ago

I think he could use a flask and do the "hair of the dog"

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.2.4  Vic Eldred  replied to  GaJenn78 @1.2.3    4 months ago

I think that would be the end of him.

 
 
 
Heartland American
1.3  Heartland American  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @1    4 months ago

Mueller and the democrats are going to be figuratively crucified today and deservedly so.  

 
 
 
lady in black
1.3.1  lady in black  replied to  Heartland American @1.3    4 months ago

No they're not, keep dreaming

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
1.4  Freedom Warrior  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @1    4 months ago

 What a pathetic way to end someone’s career I mean this guy was straight out of central casting for a zombie from night of the living dead, they should’ve checked to see if he could fog a mirror before he got in front of Congress.  I think even Frankenstein had a better make up artist. 

Republicans were feeding on him like vultures.  The guy couldn’t find his way out of a wet paper bag let alone find evidence of Russian collusion even though everybody had done the homework for him. 

Oh and the clincher I’m gonna have to correct myself for what I said about indicting a sitting president well it ain’t exactly how it works ... thus, flop, face plant, stake through the heart of the zombie apocalypse.

 Scramble to fake news propaganda machine I don’t think this one’s coming back from the dead.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
2  JohnRussell    4 months ago

I think we now know why Mueller didnt want to testify. He is showing his age , and does not have the combativeness needed to confront the GOP conspiracy nuts. 

Nonetheless this hearing has conclusively demonstrated that Trump obstructed justice, which is a crime and an impeachable offense.  Thus he needs to be impeached. 

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
2.1  author  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh  replied to  JohnRussell @2    4 months ago
He is showing his age

Did he actually investigate anything or did he just outsource the investigation? It sounds like he had nothing to do with it.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
2.2  Sean Treacy  replied to  JohnRussell @2    4 months ago
Nonetheless this hearing has conclusively demonstrated that Trump obstructed justice

What new evidence produced today does that? 

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
2.2.1  author  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh  replied to  Sean Treacy @2.2    4 months ago

The entire evidence is this, He beat Hillary in 2016. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
2.2.2  JohnRussell  replied to  Sean Treacy @2.2    4 months ago

Let's have Don McGhan testify before Congress and see what happens. 

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
2.2.3  author  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh  replied to  JohnRussell @2.2.2    4 months ago

You forget that there must first be a provable crime before there can be obstruction of justice. It's just a fact, the democrats playing politics know this, our legal scholars know this as do our judges.

Nothingburger.]

The charge of obstruction is DOA!

 
 
 
Sparty On
2.2.4  Sparty On  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @2.2.1    4 months ago

Yes he did .... via an endless supply of unmitigated gall .......

 
 
 
JohnRussell
2.2.5  JohnRussell  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @2.2.3    4 months ago
You forget that there must first be a provable crime before there can be obstruction of justice.

Sorry Perry Mason Jr,  that is not correct. 

 
 
 
Sparty On
2.2.6  Sparty On  replied to  JohnRussell @2.2.5    4 months ago

Perry Mason?

He seem more like a Matlock type to me.

Who are you?   Denny Crane?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
2.2.7  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @2.2.2    4 months ago
Let's have Don McGhan testify before Congress and see what happens. 

Oh ya, then we can prove that the President was thinking of firing Mueller!  How dare he!

 
 
 
Snuffy
2.2.8  Snuffy  replied to  JohnRussell @2.2.2    4 months ago
Let's have Don McGhan testify before Congress and see what happens

Forcing a senior member of a president's advisors to break Executive Privilege and testify about official duties? That would have to go to court and there is a lot of precedent around it. Not to mention the down-stream ramifications. How would it work when the parties switch around and the Republicans are in charge of the house and subpoena a Democrat Presidents Chief of Staff? About the only think we can be sure of in this case is that if one side changes the rules the other side when it's their turn will do the same thing and continue to push the goal posts. Some times party politics should be ignored.

 
 
 
Dulay
2.2.9  Dulay  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @2.2.3    4 months ago
You forget that there must first be a provable crime before there can be obstruction of justice. It's just a fact, the democrats playing politics know this, our legal scholars know this as do our judges.

False. There need be NO underlying crime for a charge of obstruction of justice. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
2.2.10  Tacos!  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @2.2.3    4 months ago
there must first be a provable crime before there can be obstruction of justice

It's technically not required, but as a practical matter, it helps an awful lot. It's kind of hard to convince a trier of fact that the accused was motivated to obstruct investigation of a crime he didn't commit.

 
 
 
bugsy
2.2.11  bugsy  replied to  Tacos! @2.2.10    4 months ago
a crime he didn't commit.

Or of one that did not exist in the first place.

 
 
 
Ronin2
2.3  Ronin2  replied to  JohnRussell @2    4 months ago
Thus he needs to be impeached. 

You were already saying that before the testimony even started. It didn't matter Mueller said. He could have declared the 5th on all questions, and you would have said the same thing. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
2.3.1  JohnRussell  replied to  Ronin2 @2.3    4 months ago

Of course, there are many reasons Trump should be impeached. He is a constant embarrassment to this country. 

 
 
 
Ronin2
2.3.2  Ronin2  replied to  JohnRussell @2.3.1    4 months ago
He is a constant embarrassment to this country. 

Sorry, that doesn't qualify him for impeachment.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
2.3.3  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @2.3.1    4 months ago
Of course, there are many reasons Trump should be impeached.

Volume 2 was designed for a democratic House to do just that. Weissmann at work.

 
 
 
Heartland American
2.3.4  Heartland American  replied to  Ronin2 @2.3    4 months ago

jrSmiley_76_smiley_image.gif Impeach jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif ImpeachjrSmiley_86_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_86_smiley_image.gif Impeach jrSmiley_91_smiley_image.gif Impeach Impeach 

 
 
 
WallyW
2.4  WallyW  replied to  JohnRussell @2    4 months ago
Nonetheless this hearing has conclusively demonstrated that Trump obstructed justice,

It's been demonstrated that Mueller ran a tainted and corrupt investigation.

 
 
 
Tessylo
2.4.1  Tessylo  replied to  WallyW @2.4    4 months ago
It's been demonstrated that Mueller ran a tainted and corrupt investigation.

Where has that been demonstrated?

 
 
 
lady in black
2.4.2  lady in black  replied to  Tessylo @2.4.1    4 months ago

Only in the minds of trumpsters

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
2.4.3  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tessylo @2.4.1    4 months ago
Where has that been demonstrated?

On page 1 which lacks any predicate for any such investigation!

 
 
 
Tessylo
2.4.4  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.4.3    4 months ago

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiggggggggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhttttttttttttttttttttttt!

 
 
 
Ozzwald
2.4.5  Ozzwald  replied to  Tessylo @2.4.1    4 months ago

Where has that been demonstrated?

You realize that Wally will never ever return to your comment string now, right?

 
 
 
WallyW
2.4.6  WallyW  replied to  Ozzwald @2.4.5    4 months ago
You realize that Wally will never ever return to your comment string now, right?

Who cares...she's on ignore

 
 
 
Dulay
2.4.7  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.4.3    4 months ago

The predicate for such an investigation is documented in Rosenstein's appointment letter.

Mueller's report was written, mandated via statute, as a confidential document for the purview of the AG. There was no need to hold the AG's hand by citing a predicate. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
2.4.8  Vic Eldred  replied to  Dulay @2.4.7    4 months ago

I know how you feel, but here in America we don't investigate people in search of a crime, we investigate crimes. Firing Comey was not a crime.

But you already know that.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
2.4.9  Ozzwald  replied to  WallyW @2.4.6    4 months ago
Who cares...she's on ignore

I guess that's easier than answering her very simple question.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
2.4.10  Ozzwald  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.4.8    4 months ago
I know how you feel, but here in America we don't investigate people in search of a crime, we investigate crimes.

How do we know a crime has occurred until there is an investigation?

 
 
 
loki12
2.4.11  loki12  replied to  Ozzwald @2.4.10    4 months ago

Seriously? We investigate to find the guilty party, not to see if a crime has been committed.

Do you think the police find someone and then investigate him looking for a crime, or do you think there has been a crime and THEN they investigate to see who is responsible?

 
 
 
Ozzwald
2.4.12  Ozzwald  replied to  loki12 @2.4.11    4 months ago

Do you think the police find someone and then investigate him looking for a crime, or do you think there has been a crime and THEN they investigate to see who is responsible?

When there is a mass shooting, and someone is arrested on the scene, why is there still an investigation then?

The answer is, to discover if there have been any other crimes committed in the process.

Trump was investigated for obstruction and conspiracy, during that investigation they found evidence of other crimes (tax fraud, election finance violations, and others, they also found evidence of other people around him being guilty of other crimes not associated with the originating crimes (Manafort, Cohen, Flynn, etc).

 
 
 
XDm9mm
2.4.13  XDm9mm  replied to  Ozzwald @2.4.12    4 months ago
why is there still an investigation then?

To determine the guilt of the accused.

 
 
 
Dulay
2.4.14  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.4.8    4 months ago
I know how you feel, but here in America we don't investigate people in search of a crime, we investigate crimes. Firing Comey was not a crime.
But you already know that.

The investigation started almost a YEAR before Trump fired Comey so your comment is irrelevant. 

But you already know that. 

 
 
 
Dulay
2.4.15  Dulay  replied to  XDm9mm @2.4.13    4 months ago

So your posit is that we accuse someone BEFORE we investigate whether they are guilty of a crime? 

 
 
 
Tessylo
2.4.16  Tessylo  replied to  Ozzwald @2.4.9    4 months ago

'I guess that's easier than answering her very simple question.'

Yup.  He never backs up his claims, NEVER.  

 
 
 
XDm9mm
2.4.17  XDm9mm  replied to  Dulay @2.4.15    4 months ago
So your posit is that we accuse someone BEFORE we investigate whether they are guilty of a crime? 

Are those arrested and charged with a crime already proved guilty?

Are you now claiming that we only charge, arrest and prosecute people that have already been found guilty?

 
 
 
Ozzwald
2.4.18  Ozzwald  replied to  XDm9mm @2.4.13    4 months ago
To determine the guilt of the accused.

After he has been arrested on the scene with the weapons, and dozens of eye witnesses?  Even Marcia Clark would be able to get a guilty verdict from that.  Yet there is still an investigation done.

Stephen Paddock killed himself in the hotel room with the ammo and the weapons, yet there was still an over year long investigation of a long dead suspect.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
2.4.19  XDm9mm  replied to  Ozzwald @2.4.18    4 months ago
yet there was still an over year long investigation of a long dead suspect.

To try and determine MOTIVE.

However, regardless of what they 'discover', it's supposition and conjecture as the ONLY one who knows why he/she did something is the individual that did it.  Making ASSumptions after the fact when the individual is dead is superfluous and a waste of time, effort and funding.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
2.4.20  Ozzwald  replied to  XDm9mm @2.4.19    4 months ago
To try and determine MOTIVE.

Not to identify the criminal???  Does Vic know you are arguing against him?

 
 
 
XDm9mm
2.4.21  XDm9mm  replied to  Ozzwald @2.4.20    4 months ago
Not to identify the criminal???  Does Vic know you are arguing against him?

Keep up Ozzy.....   I was responding to a very SPECIFIC post regarding Steven Paddock..  

That WAS the object of your own post was it not?

 
 
 
Ozzwald
2.4.22  Ozzwald  replied to  XDm9mm @2.4.21    4 months ago

That WAS the object of your own post was it not?

Only if I mentioned a specific name.  Did I?  Yes I did, and Vic said that they only investigate to identify criminals.  They already had the criminal, yet they continued to investigate...

 
 
 
Dulay
2.4.23  Dulay  replied to  XDm9mm @2.4.17    4 months ago
Are those arrested and charged with a crime already proved guilty?

Yes, to the satisfaction of a Grand Jury in most states to be tried in a criminal case.

Are you now claiming that we only charge, arrest and prosecute people that have already been found guilty?

No. 

BTFW, you didn't answer my question. 

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
2.4.24  author  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh  replied to  Dulay @2.4.23    4 months ago
BTFW, you didn't answer my question. 

Do you really have to ask why?

 
 
 
Dulay
2.4.25  Dulay  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @2.4.24    4 months ago
Do you really have to ask why?

I didn't ask why. DO try to keep up. 

 
 
 
cjcold
2.4.26  cjcold  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.4.8    4 months ago

Trump admitted on video that he fired Comey because "of that Russia thing".

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
2.4.31  Dismayed Patriot  replied to    4 months ago
I would have fired Comey just for letting Hillary off the hook and then interfering with the election with his ill-timed reopening of it. 

So you would have done it long before asking him for his loyalty and asking him to drop the investigation into your hand selected National Security Adviser. That would indeed have been prudent if you were a normal President and not a half-witted caricature of a bumbling mob boss.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
2.5  Nerm_L  replied to  JohnRussell @2    4 months ago
Nonetheless this hearing has conclusively demonstrated that Trump obstructed justice, which is a crime and an impeachable offense.  Thus he needs to be impeached. 

So, impeach Trump already.  Get on with it. 

What Mueller most clearly demonstrated is that no one is going to do the dirty work for Democrats.  If Democrats want Trump removed from office, Democrats will have to do it themselves.

 
 
 
Texan1211
2.5.1  Texan1211  replied to  Nerm_L @2.5    4 months ago
So, impeach Trump already. Get on with it.

Therein lies the biggest Democratic problem.

They just don't have the balls to pull it off.

They seemed to think the Great Mueller Report was going to do their dirty work for them.

It failed to do it.

Then many swore that Mueller's testimony would sink Trump.

It didn't.

And to think, I remember when Democrats were all crowing about how the Great Mueller Report was going to lead to Trump's impeachment, and us Republicans would just have to wait on that special, special report.

We waited.

We are STILL waiting.

What else will they try now?

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
2.5.2  Sean Treacy  replied to  Texan1211 @2.5.1    4 months ago

I saw someone, can't remember who it was, say Nadler and Pelosi wanted this outcome. They knew what they were getting with Mueller and that such a performance would ease the impeachment pressure. It was a win win for them.  On the off chance Mueller was impressive and compelling, they could build momentum towards impeachment, but if he performed as expected then Democrats would stop pushing their representatives to impeach Trump. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
2.5.3  JohnRussell  replied to  Sean Treacy @2.5.2    4 months ago

Sean, about 30 Democrats laid out various aspects of Trump's misconduct.  NONE of it was refuted either by Mueller or by the Republicans on the committees. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
2.5.4  Texan1211  replied to  Sean Treacy @2.5.2    4 months ago
I saw someone, can't remember who it was, say Nadler and Pelosi wanted this outcome. They knew what they were getting with Mueller and that such a performance would ease the impeachment pressure. It was a win win for them. On the off chance Mueller was impressive and compelling, they could build momentum towards impeachment, but if he performed as expected then Democrats would stop pushing their representatives to impeach Trump.

That may well be true, but I bet they weren't counting on the Quad Squad!

 
 
 
livefreeordie
2.5.5  livefreeordie  replied to  JohnRussell @2.5.3    4 months ago

You must have been watching in an alternate reality.

even the die hard Trump haters on MSNBC are depressed and saying things like “Trump’s going to get away with it”.

we Trump supporters are ecstatic about today. It showed exactly what we know.  This has been the biggest political farce in our nation’s history

 
 
 
JohnRussell
2.5.6  JohnRussell  replied to  livefreeordie @2.5.5    4 months ago
even the die hard Trump haters on MSNBC are depressed and saying things like “Trump’s going to get away with it”. we Trump supporters are ecstatic about today.

You're ecstatic about getting away with it? 

Only in our fake news world of Fox News and Trumpism could reality be turned on its head like we are seeing here on NT and on social media. 

Appx 30 Democratic congresspeople laid out the specifics of misconduct by President* Trump. None of it was contradicted by either Mueller or the Republican representatives. 

 
 
 
livefreeordie
2.5.7  livefreeordie  replied to  JohnRussell @2.5.6    4 months ago

No, I’m ecstatic watching the Dem meltdown.   These enemies of liberty need to be crushed so that they never can rise to power

 
 
 
livefreeordie
2.5.8  livefreeordie  replied to  JohnRussell @2.5.6    4 months ago

Mueller said nothing that indicated Trump did anything wrong.  He doesn’t even know what’s in his own report.

this remains the biggest political farce in our nation’s history

todays hearing pretty much guarantees Trump’s re-election

 
 
 
MUVA
2.5.9  MUVA  replied to  livefreeordie @2.5.8    4 months ago

Can you imagine if they went after a democrat with this conjecture BS what a kangaroo court.

 
 
 
Tessylo
2.5.10  Tessylo  replied to  livefreeordie @2.5.7    4 months ago

Of course you are pastor.

 
 
 
livefreeordie
2.5.11  livefreeordie  replied to  Tessylo @2.5.10    4 months ago

Any time the deceit and treachery of Marxist statist Democrats falls to naught is a good day for America and Americans

 
 
 
Tacos!
2.5.12  Tacos!  replied to  Nerm_L @2.5    4 months ago
What Mueller most clearly demonstrated is that no one is going to do the dirty work for Democrats. 

That is exactly what all this song and dance has been about.

 
 
 
Tessylo
2.5.13  Tessylo  replied to  livefreeordie @2.5.11    4 months ago
'Marxist statist'

Marxist, statist, communist, socialist blah blah fucking blah.  

 
 
 
Dulay
2.5.14  Dulay  replied to  MUVA @2.5.9    4 months ago
Can you imagine if they went after a democrat with this conjecture BS what a kangaroo court.

We don't have to imagine that scenario. All you need do is go watch the 11 hours of questioning by the 'House Select Committee on Benghazi'. Then go read their report. 

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
2.6  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  JohnRussell @2    4 months ago
He is showing his age

He's showing that he found nothing after 22 months of witch hunting.  

Nonetheless this hearing has conclusively demonstrated that Trump obstructed justice

You mean despite Bobbie Mueller acknowledging several times that it didn't happen?  

 
 
 
JohnRussell
2.6.1  JohnRussell  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @2.6    4 months ago

Your comments display ignorance at a staggering level. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
2.6.2  Tessylo  replied to  JohnRussell @2.6.1    4 months ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
2.6.3  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  JohnRussell @2.6.1    4 months ago

Ignorance at a staggering level is thinking the President obstructed despite Mueller admitting that he didn't on national TV.  

 
 
 
Tessylo
2.6.4  Tessylo  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @2.6.3    4 months ago
'Ignorance at a staggering level is thinking the President obstructed despite Mueller admitting that he didn't on national TV.' 

MUELLER NEVER SAID THAT.  

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
2.6.5  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Tessylo @2.6.4    4 months ago

MUELLER NEVER SAID THAT.  

First the all caps just reinforces the fact you are mid temper tantrum. 

Second:

  • Question to Bobbie (ask several times):  Were you able to conduct your investigation unhindered and unobstructed?
  • Bobbies answer:  Yes.

Unhindered and unobstructed.  Mueller answered there was nothing hindering or obstructing his investigation. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
2.6.6  Tessylo  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @2.6.5    4 months ago

jrSmiley_90_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
2.6.8  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to    4 months ago
Mueller never said no obstruction.  Barr did that in order to clear his boss.

Barr wasn't on national TV answering the question "were you able to conduct your investigation unhindered and unobstructed?"

 
 
 
tomwcraig
2.7  tomwcraig  replied to  JohnRussell @2    4 months ago

If you knew anything about law, you have to have an underlying crime in order to actually obstruct an investigation.  Trump did not conspire (collude) with Russia and therefore anything he did, in fact, did not obstruct justice.

 
 
 
Tessylo
2.7.1  Tessylo  replied to  tomwcraig @2.7    4 months ago

What do you know about law?

 
 
 
tomwcraig
2.7.2  tomwcraig  replied to  Tessylo @2.7.1    4 months ago

Lessee, I took several law courses in college and I participated in a Sexual Harassment mock trial competition for the state of PA in 1990-1991 as one of the defense attorneys.  So, probably a lot more than you.

EDIT: Plus, multiple prosecutors on various talk shows have said exactly that you need to have an underlying crime in order to prosecute for obstruction of justice.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
2.7.3  JohnRussell  replied to  tomwcraig @2.7    4 months ago
you have to have an underlying crime in order to actually obstruct an investigation. 

No, you don't.  It would possibly be more difficult to prove corrupt intent without an underlying crime, but the underlying crime is not necessary. THERE WAS NOT A SINGLE REPUBLICAN ALL DAY THAT ARGUED WHAT YOU ARE ARGUING HERE. Not one. If it were a good defense, you can bet your whatever they would have used it. 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2019/03/26/barr-is-wrong-obstruction-justice-doesnt-require-another-underlying-crime/?utm_term=.21bbe1920ab0

 
 
 
Ronin2
2.7.4  Ronin2  replied to  JohnRussell @2.7.3    4 months ago

Keep repeating the same crap over and over.

Mueller screwed the pooch royally; and the Dems couldn't make him say those magic words- "Trump committed a crime".

Nadler is a bigger liar than Trump.

 
 
 
tomwcraig
2.7.5  tomwcraig  replied to  JohnRussell @2.7.3    4 months ago

Okay, how is using everything within your purview corrupt intent?  How is ordering someone to fire someone whom works for you and whom you believe has a conflict of interest regarding the job they are doing?  You see that is what seems to have been forgotten here, Trump didn't need any reason to fire Mueller despite pointing out to others that Mueller might have a conflict of interest.  And, that conflict of interest somewhat shows itself in the fact that Mueller pointed out in the report that Joseph Mifsud, whom STARTED the investigation of Papadopoulos, lied to investigators AND WAS NEVER CHARGED while everyone working for Trump whom might have misspoke to investigators had the book thrown at them.  A fair, conscientious investigator or prosecutor throws the book at everyone equally if they lied to them; they don't pick and choose to only go after the accused when the accusers also are lying.

 
 
 
Tessylo
2.7.6  Tessylo  replied to  tomwcraig @2.7.2    4 months ago

So you're an expert on law because you took a couple of courses.

jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Dulay
2.7.7  Dulay  replied to  tomwcraig @2.7.5    4 months ago
You see that is what seems to have been forgotten here, Trump didn't need any reason to fire Mueller despite pointing out to others that Mueller might have a conflict of interest. 

For someone who pretends to know about the law, you sure as hell are clueless when it comes to the Special Counsel statute. I suggest you go READ the statute and come back and correct you statement. 

 
 
 
tomwcraig
2.7.8  tomwcraig  replied to  Dulay @2.7.7    4 months ago

I suggest you read the US Constitution and correct your statement.  Who is in charge of the DOJ, DOD, etc?  The statute may say the AG can be the only person to remove the Special Counsel, but the AG works at the whim of the President and the President can fire just about anyone in the Cabinet Departments for no apparent reason and does not have to give a reason, since they all work for him.

 
 
 
Tessylo
2.7.9  Tessylo  replied to  tomwcraig @2.7.8    4 months ago

They don't work for the 'president'.  They're supposed to work for us.  

I believe the asshole believes he is still on The Apprentice where he can say 'you're fired' to anyone 'who works for him'

 
 
 
KDMichigan
2.7.10  KDMichigan  replied to  Tessylo @2.7.9    4 months ago
They're supposed to work for us.  

But I thought the AG was supposed to be the Presidents wingman.

Isn't that his job?

 
 
 
Dulay
2.7.11  Dulay  replied to  tomwcraig @2.7.8    4 months ago
I suggest you read the US Constitution and correct your statement.  Who is in charge of the DOJ, DOD, etc? 

I have. Here's a part of Article I that you seem to have missed:

To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

In short, the Congress makes all laws and the Heads of the Agencies make regulations to enact those laws. 

The statute may say the AG can be the only person to remove the Special Counsel, 

Looky there tom, you just admitted to the FACT that neither Trump nor WH Counsel McGahn had the authority to fire Special Counsel Mueller. 

but the AG works at the whim of the President and the President can fire just about anyone in the Cabinet Departments for no apparent reason and does not have to give a reason, since they all work for him.

All of that blather is irrelevant tom. 

Trump called McGahn at home TWICE and told him that Mueller had to go. NOT Sessions, NOT Rosenstein, but McGahn.

THAT is a violation of the Special Counsel regulation AND because it was in reaction to finding out, that day, that he was under investigation for obstruction, Trump did so with corrupt intent and therefore FURTHER obstructed justice. 

BTW, your review of the Special Counsel regulation should have proven to you that the ONLY reason that the Special Counsel can be fired is for CAUSE. There has been NO evidence that Mueller was under investigation for misconduct or breach of ethical duties. As stated by Mueller in his testimony, the Office of Government Ethics cleared Mueller. That was done within a week of Mueller being appointed. All of Trump's blathering about Mueller having conflicts of interest are utter bullshit and even his own legal team, including McGahn, admit that fact. 

Now unless and until there is evidence that McGahn LIED to the Special Counsel, his testimony of the above events [along with supporting phone records] MUST be considered factual. I'd love to read McGahn's full 302 interview but Trump has claimed Executive Privilege on all of that evidence that supports Mueller's report. Wonder why?  

 
 
 
cjcold
2.7.12  cjcold  replied to  tomwcraig @2.7.2    4 months ago

Obstruction of justice is all about hiding a underlying crime.

Trump has a plethora of them to hide.

 
 
 
KDMichigan
2.7.15  KDMichigan  replied to    4 months ago

Holder's words not mine.

 
 
 
Ronin2
2.7.16  Ronin2  replied to  cjcold @2.7.12    4 months ago
Trump has a plethora of them to hide.

Unfortunately neither Mueller and his team of Hillary and Obama sycophants, nor the Dems seem to be able to find them.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
3  Sean Treacy    4 months ago

Chris Wallace: "This has been a disaster for Democrats and for the reputation of Robert Mueller."

 
 
 
Ronin2
3.1  Ronin2  replied to  Sean Treacy @3    4 months ago

What did they really expect? For Mueller to open himself up for charges by lying? He knows he is being listened to very closely.  There are investigations going on the FISA warrants used to start this whole boondoggle.

He refused to charge Trump in his report.  He did shoddy work, even with a team full of Hillary and Obama sycophants. 

He is now protecting his own ass.

 
 
 
WallyW
3.1.1  WallyW  replied to  Ronin2 @3.1    4 months ago

I doubt that this media clown show will produce the results that Nadler wanted.

 
 
 
Tessylo
3.1.2  Tessylo  replied to  Ronin2 @3.1    4 months ago

What warrants?  What investigations?

 
 
 
Tessylo
3.2  Tessylo  replied to  Sean Treacy @3    4 months ago

Says Chris Wallace from the turds' propaganda network 

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
4  author  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh    4 months ago

The real question here is?

384

 
 
 
JohnRussell
4.1  JohnRussell  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @4    4 months ago

Are you opening the door to a discussion of the use of that photo on NT?  lol. 

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
4.1.1  author  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1    4 months ago

Please stay on topic, the topic is the Mueller testimony. You're welcome to have fun with the thread but it needs to be related to the topic in some way. There will be no meta.

 
 
 
Raven Wing
4.1.2  Raven Wing  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1    4 months ago

As often as I have seen it and those similar used here in articles of late borders on spamming of it. It is obnoxious to say the least. And the use of a handicapped person to be made fun of is even worse. Yet it seems to be the favorite of some here on NT. Doesn't say much for the site.

 
 
 
Sparty On
4.2  Sparty On  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @4    4 months ago

Lol .... i have to agree with John R on one thing.  

Your fascination with this photo borders on the unhealthy there bro!

Bro advice is free .....i suggest you take it brotato chip ....

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
4.2.1  author  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh  replied to  Sparty On @4.2    4 months ago

I'm drinking a brotein shake, but thank you.

Back to the topic homeskillet!

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
4.2.2  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @4.2.1    4 months ago
Back to the topic homeskillet!

Did your cut & paste meme have anything to do with the topic? Seems it was just a sad attempt at derailing any real discussion of Mueller's testimony.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
4.2.3  Vic Eldred  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @4.2.2    4 months ago
any real discussion of Mueller's testimony.

You mean Mueller's incoherent testimony. It's that way because the right hand didn't know what the left hand was up to!

 
 
 
Sparty On
4.2.4  Sparty On  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.2.3    4 months ago

I'm getting shades of the Kavanaugh trial ..... Congresspeople using/abusing Dr Ford and Kavanaugh but now it's Mueller.

Those pricks in congress are incorrigible.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
4.2.5  Vic Eldred  replied to  Sparty On @4.2.4    4 months ago

I'm sure he knew what he was walking into. I'm not so sure he knew what those under him were up to.

 
 
 
Transyferous Rex
5  Transyferous Rex    4 months ago

Haven't listened to a second of it. Any updates? Anything exciting? Or, has it been Price is Right, loser trombone bump?

 
 
 
JBB
5.1  JBB  replied to  Transyferous Rex @5    4 months ago

In his calm manner Mueller eviscerated Trump. The gop looks like corrupt fools...

 
 
 
Sparty On
5.1.1  Sparty On  replied to  JBB @5.1    4 months ago

Now there's an interesting spin .... albeit a shithouse rat crazy one ......

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
5.1.2  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  JBB @5.1    4 months ago
In his calm manner Mueller eviscerated Trump

Transyferous Rex,  That's moonbat for the only thing that happened was Republicans ask actual questions and got no answers and Democrats were kissing his ass.

 
 
 
tomwcraig
5.1.3  tomwcraig  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @5.1.2    4 months ago

Like Transyferous Rex, I didn't watch the testimony.  However, I was expecting it to be like you described, Jeremy Retired in NC.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
6  JohnRussell    4 months ago

  • Glenn Thrush
    @GlennThrush
    Unless I've missed it,
    not a single Republican has challenged Mueller's documented narrative of the president's repeated attempts to shut down and undermine his investigation.
    They are hitting him on legalities, biases, his authority to investigate, etc. -- but not the facts.
 
 
 
JohnRussell
6.1  JohnRussell  replied to  JohnRussell @6    4 months ago
lPHwsx8u_bigger.jpg
Tom Ryan
@tomr515
·
22m
Replying to
Carl Sandburg got it right: “If the facts are against you, argue the law. If the law is against you, argue the facts. If the law and the facts are against you, pound the table and yell like hell.”
 
 
 
Sean Treacy
6.1.1  Sean Treacy  replied to  JohnRussell @6.1    4 months ago
t: “If the facts are against you, argue the law

They are trying to argue the facts but Mueller doesn't know them, or even more bizarrely, will claim he can't discuss them, even though they are in his report. 

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
6.2  author  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh  replied to  JohnRussell @6    4 months ago

There is no underlying crime, there can be no obstruction. We will need to revise US law for your desired prosecution.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
6.2.1  JohnRussell  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @6.2    4 months ago

You are getting bad legal advice. 

If that were the case dont you think one of the Republicans would have dropped that bombshell by now?  Are you going to keep repeating something that is not true? 

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
6.2.2  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @6.2    4 months ago
There is no underlying crime, there can be no obstruction.

Total nonsense. If you heard that from your lawyer, you should get a new lawyer who actually knows the law.

"You can obstruct justice even if a prosecutor ultimately finds you were not guilty of committing the crime that was the focus of the underlying investigation," said Miriam Baer, a professor at Brooklyn Law School. "Even if a prosecutor ultimately concluded that you weren’t guilty of crime X, that says nothing as to whether you thought that you might be indicted for crime X, or, for that matter, if you thought one of your friends of family members would be indicted for crime X."

Eric Posner, a professor at the University of Chicago Law School, agreed that an obstruction prosecution could have been argued in this case.

"Suppose Trump knew that no crime had been committed but believed that the investigation would uncover politically or personally embarrassing information, or if he believed that the investigation would embarrass or implicate an ally, aide, or family member," Posner said. "Then interfering with the investigation is a crime. The reason is that the purpose of the investigation is to find the truth, and if people obstruct an investigation, then the investigation becomes more difficult, wasting government resources."

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2019/mar/25/martha-stewart-donald-trump-can-there-be-obstructi/

"in January, a Navy captain in Florida was indicted on a charge of obstruction of justice after he allegedly misled investigators about his extramarital affair with a civilian employee’s spouse. Of course, adultery is not a crime. But interfering with an investigation to cover up adultery certainly is."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2019/03/26/barr-is-wrong-obstruction-justice-doesnt-require-another-underlying-crime/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.9aee729d9532

 
 
 
Dulay
6.2.3  Dulay  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @6.2    4 months ago

Gee BF, I wonder why every one of the GOP Congressmen didn't ask Mueller how he could claim that there was obstruction of justice without an underlying crime. I would think that at least one of the former Prosecutors on the Republican side would have at least mentioned it...

 
 
 
Ronin2
6.3  Ronin2  replied to  JohnRussell @6    4 months ago

Yes John, the legality of his investigation is a very big deal. If the investigation is illegal all resulting charges from it are illegal. Including the obstruction charge you like to bandy about.

Keep on spinning. Mueller isn't giving the Dems anything to go on.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
6.3.1  JohnRussell  replied to  Ronin2 @6.3    4 months ago

What investigation was illegal? 

 
 
 
Ronin2
6.3.2  Ronin2  replied to  JohnRussell @6.3.1    4 months ago

Yes John, go ahead and google the investigations into the legality of the FISA warrants. The very thing used to start the surveillance on Carter Page and everyone he was associated with.

Enlighten yourself.

 
 
 
Tessylo
6.3.3  Tessylo  replied to  Ronin2 @6.3.2    4 months ago

There was no illegality regarding the FISA warrants.  

Carter Page should be so happy that you're supporting him.  

 
 
 
Ronin2
6.3.4  Ronin2  replied to  Tessylo @6.3.3    4 months ago
There was no illegality regarding the FISA warrants.  

Sorry, I will wait for the investigations to conclude- rather than take your word.

Carter Page should be so happy that you're supporting him.  

So what did Carter Page do wrong? Please spell it out since Comey and Mueller were so incompetent they didn't bother to question him; much the less charge him with anything. Page is after all the master spy. They started investigating all those he associated with; which of course was an easy in to Trump campaign. How can Page still be walking free?

 
 
 
Ozzwald
6.3.5  Ozzwald  replied to  Ronin2 @6.3.4    4 months ago
Sorry, I will wait for the investigations to conclude- rather than take your word.

Nune's House investigation already concluded that there was no FISA illegality.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
6.3.6  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Ozzwald @6.3.5    4 months ago

Don't reign over their conspiracy parade.

That is reserved for the Grand Wizard , also known as 

Trump 

 
 
 
Ronin2
6.3.7  Ronin2  replied to  Ozzwald @6.3.5    4 months ago

Try again, and again, and again.

https://thehill.com/hilltv/rising/419901-fbi-email-chain-may-provide-most-damning-evidence-of-fisa-abuses-yet

If you are talking about the Nunes memo you are spinning harder than the Dems in the House.

https://www.pbs.org/weta/washingtonweek/episode/what-did-nunes-memo-reveal

It is not like FBI doesn't have a history of FISA abuses either.

https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/428755-mueller-hauled-before-secret-fisa-court-to-address-fbi-abuses-in-2002

You can google the very real investigations going on about the FISA abuses that started this whole boondoggle.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
6.3.8  Ozzwald  replied to  Ronin2 @6.3.7    4 months ago

TMuiJgS.jpg

 
 
 
Tessylo
6.3.9  Tessylo  replied to  Ozzwald @6.3.8    4 months ago

jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
6.3.10  Freedom Warrior  replied to  Tessylo @6.3.3    4 months ago

 There’s a long list of crimes  and charges and violations of ethics regarding the FISA warrants this isn’t even questionable anymore the only question that remains is when the individuals that perpetrated those crimes will be prosecuted 

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
6.3.11  Freedom Warrior  replied to  Freedom Warrior @6.3.10    4 months ago

 Not only that Mueller is implicated in the FISA court abuse

 
 
 
Tessylo
6.3.12  Tessylo  replied to  Freedom Warrior @6.3.10    4 months ago

Nope

 
 
 
Ozzwald
6.3.13  Ozzwald  replied to  Freedom Warrior @6.3.10    4 months ago
 There’s a long list of crimes  and charges and violations of ethics regarding the FISA warrants this isn’t even questionable anymore the only question that remains is when the individuals that perpetrated those crimes will be prosecuted 

Does the term, "this isn’t even questionable" actually mean to you, "please don't ask me about this because I have no actual evidence"? 

Because your claims are nothing but uncorroborated conspiracy theories that Devin Nune's brought up in his House investigation over a year ago.  But he was then unable to support those claims at the end of his investigation.

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
6.3.14  Freedom Warrior  replied to  Ozzwald @6.3.13    4 months ago

Wrong again!  There is little doubt you have no desire to acknowledge the facts.

 
 
 
Dulay
6.3.15  Dulay  replied to  Freedom Warrior @6.3.14    4 months ago
There is little doubt you have no desire to acknowledge the facts.

There is little doubt that you have no intention of actually posting any acknowledged  facts. 

 
 
 
Dulay
6.3.16  Dulay  replied to  Ronin2 @6.3    4 months ago
Yes John, the legality of his investigation is a very big deal. If the investigation is illegal all resulting charges from it are illegal.

Are you positing that Mueller wasn't appointed Special Counsel? 

Including the obstruction charge you like to bandy about.

The obstruction charges are documented. 

Keep on spinning. Mueller isn't giving the Dems anything to go on.

Mueller already gave his report.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
6.3.17  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Freedom Warrior @6.3.10    4 months ago
this isn’t even questionable anymore the only question that remains is when the individuals that perpetrated those crimes will be prosecuted 

What the hell are you talking about? This hasn't even been investigated let alone conclusions drawn that would make it not "even questionable anymore".

So far, there is no a single shred of evidence that the FISA warrants were granted improperly, not a shred. There are some like Barr saying they should be investigated and the Republican are giddy with any opportunity to deflect and distract, but they zero evidence anything was done improperly when it comes to the beginning of the investigation.

"As FISA experts from across the political spectrum have generally (albeit not unanimously) concluded, the newly disclosed materials go a long way toward undermining Trump’s objections by suggesting that the warrant was indeed properly sought and obtained (and, as importantly, repeatedly reauthorized)."

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/trump-s-criticism-carter-page-fisa-warrant-wrong-doesn-t-ncna894146

"On Fox News and in the National Review , McCarthy makes three primary arguments: (1) the so-called Steele dossier was “the driving force behind the Trump-Russia investigation”; (2) the FISA court was not told that the Clinton campaign was behind Steele’s work; and (3) the FBI did not “verify” the factual allegations contained in the dossier.  

McCarthy’s first two points should be quickly dismissed. The first Page FISA application, however, was not obtained until October 2016, well after the Trump-Russia investigation began and even after Page himself had left the campaign.   McCarthy (and Trump) attempt to pinpoint the Page FISA application as the central reason for the initiation of the Trump-Russia investigation in a sleight-of-hand attempt to discredit the investigation, but the facts just don’t support that assertion.  

The facts also do not support McCarthy’s second point (one that Congressman Devin Nunes misleadingly emphasized in his infamous memo about the warrant): that the FISA court was not informed about the Clinton campaign’s financial support for Christopher Steele’s work. In fact, the original application included more than a one-page footnote extensively informing the court about the fact that Steele was hired essentially to dig up dirt on Donald Trump, which more than adequately informs a court of his potential bias . Whether the Clinton campaign was the source of the payments — which Steele has testified before Congress that he did not know, because he was retained by Fusion GPS — is irrelevant to the substance of the disclosure of potential bias.  Nothing more is required or necessary in a warrant application than revealing the fact of a source’s potential for bias.  

The third point, and the crux of McCarthy’s argument, is that the FBI did not properly “verify” the information in the application, which is a technical requirement in a FISA application. McCarthy claims that the FBI was not permitted to rely solely on hearsay information provided by Steele, its source of information, but rather was required to test the credibility of, and reliance on, each sub-source who gave information to Steele.  But that is simply not what is required in FISA applications (or criminal wiretap applications), and in particular under the Woods Procedures that govern FISA applications. Under FISA, “verification” simply requires both the FBI and lawyers in the Department of Justice to verify that the facts as set forth in the affidavit are supported by evidence obtained as part of the investigation. That does not mean, however, that the FBI is required, for example, to travel to Russia to interview a sub-source to confirm that the sub-source actually did tell Steele what Steele reported to the FBI. That, of course, almost certainly would not be possible. It is therefore not surprising that McCarthy cites no authority for his assertion that such a step is required.

https://www.brennancenter.org/blog/fbi-wouldve-been-derelict-not-use-steele-dossier-carter-page-fisa-warrant

These Republican investigations will end with nothing because that's what they start with, nothing. Just a lot of hot air, conjecture and unfounded claims of implicit bias and those hanging their hats on it will be sorely disappointed.

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
6.3.18  Freedom Warrior  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @6.3.17    4 months ago

I'm not underestimating the deep state's ability to get away with their crimes in this scandal of the century.  Somebody's head is going to roll though. 

Nevertheless we know what they did and what they continue to do just as you have here echoing unprecedented nonsense such as the speaker of the house who claims Trump is a Putin stooge and is being blackmailed by the President while simultaneously belying her own untruthfulness by pushing back on impeachment efforts.  Or Schiff in his so called evidence that he can't muster up a scant hint of. They shamelessly lied to the public along with so many others that it's no wonder there are people that bought into the fantasy given their irrational hatred of Trump.  He's just a fucking dick who gets things done. Entirely unlike what we saw yesterday in that addled old Muellerfucker.

Bottom line is more and more of these criminal/unethical/corrupt shenanigans perpetrated by Strzok, Page, Comey, Mcabe, Weismann, Lynch, HRC, Steele, and others including possibly Mueller himself are being revealed as the DOJ may forever be tarnished.  I have no illusions that there are those out there unwilling to accept this reality.  It's the state of our uncivil fake news culture.   At least I am surrounded by people with integrity that know how bad it has become.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
6.3.19  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Freedom Warrior @6.3.18    4 months ago
I'm not underestimating the deep state's ability to get away with their crimes in this scandal of the century.

So they were so inept they were able to prevent a total nincompoop like Trump get elected, but they're super good at getting away with their ineffective supposed "coup"?

The only "deep state" that exists is the deep state of denial coming from Trump supporters.

He's just a fucking dick

Yes, and he'll get pulled out of the GOP's incompetent ass by force in 2020. Enjoy him while you can.

 I have no illusions

And yet your comment is full of them. There is no deep state, no one from Obamas administration is going to be going to prison, not even Hillary. I can only wonder what hallucinogen is being put in the cool aid you've been drinking because you're mistaking "integrity" with "insanity".

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
6.3.20  Freedom Warrior  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @6.3.19    4 months ago

jrSmiley_90_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
6.4  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  JohnRussell @6    4 months ago
not a single Republican has challenged Mueller's documented narrative of the president's repeated attempts to shut down and undermine his investigation.

I distinctly remember Bobbie Mueller was ask SEVERAL times if the President hindered or obstructed.  Each time, Bobbie stated "No".  

 
 
 
Tessylo
6.4.1  Tessylo  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @6.4    4 months ago
distinctly remember Bobbie Mueller was ask SEVERAL times if the President hindered or obstructed.  Each time, Bobbie stated "No".  

Each time Mr. Mueller stated "YES"

 
 
 
Ozzwald
6.4.2  Ozzwald  replied to  Tessylo @6.4.1    4 months ago

Each time Mr. Mueller stated "YES"

Actually Mueller did say no, but only because Trump underlings refused to do what Trump wanted. 

But that only covered Trump's direct attempts to obstruct the investigation and Mueller himself, it didn't address Trump encouraging witnesses to lie, implying that if witnesses didn't cooperate they would get a pardon from him, and other actions outlined in Mueller's actual report.

The report outlined 8 cases of obstruction that covered every legal aspect of the crime, and (I believe) 6 additional examples which MAY also qualify.

 
 
 
Tessylo
6.4.3  Tessylo  replied to  Ozzwald @6.4.2    4 months ago

Thanks for the correction.  My bad.  

How arrogant of some to refer to Mr. Mueller as Bobbie though.  

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
6.4.4  author  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh  replied to  Tessylo @6.4.3    4 months ago

512

 
 
 
Ozzwald
6.4.5  Ozzwald  replied to  Tessylo @6.4.3    4 months ago
Thanks for the correction.  My bad.  

Not you're bad. 

It was a Republican House member who asked the question in a very specific way, to obtain the answer that he wanted.  It was done so as to give right wing and Russian social media trolls something to post, as long as you didn't look too closely at the exchange.

And yes, arrogant and disrespectful.  But what do you expect from deplorables?

 
 
 
Ozzwald
6.4.6  Ozzwald  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @6.4.4    4 months ago

And he is only 1 year older than Trump.  But at least Mueller can find the car he is riding in.

 
 
 
Dulay
6.4.7  Dulay  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @6.4    4 months ago
I distinctly remember Bobbie Mueller was ask SEVERAL times if the President hindered or obstructed. Each time, Bobbie stated "No".

You're 'misremembering' the testimony. The obstruction statute clearly states:

Whoever corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication influences, obstructs, or impedes or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede the due and proper administration of the law under which any pending proceeding is being had before any department or agency of the United States,

Mueller testified over and over again that Trump did endeavor 'to influence, obstruct, or impede' the investigation and each instance is clearly cited and argued in Mueller's report. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
6.4.8  Tessylo  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @6.4.4    4 months ago

Where do you find your memes?  DeplorablesRUs?  

 
 
 
KDMichigan
6.4.9  KDMichigan  replied to  Tessylo @6.4.8    4 months ago

256

 
 
 
Raven Wing
6.4.10  Raven Wing  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @6.4.4    4 months ago

Now you are following in Trump's footsteps by mocking the invalids and handicapped. Shameful and disgusting when Trump did it, and no less so when you do it. 

I don't forgive Trump for doing it, but, I thought you had more self-respect than to do so. Disappointing to see you stoop that low.

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
6.4.11  author  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh  replied to  Raven Wing @6.4.10    4 months ago

Spare me your fake outrage Ravenwing. It's humor. Get over it, if I put trump in the chair you wouldnt object.

We have a word for that......

 
 
 
Raven Wing
6.4.12  Raven Wing  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @6.4.11    4 months ago

Get over yourself, BF. My outrage is NOT fake. It is totally serious. It's not funny, although, maybe YOU find making fun of handicapped people "humor" and "funny". But, those out here who may be handicapped and invalid who may be looking in to NT may NOT find it "humor" or "funny". And it says a lot about you that YOU find "humor" in it and think it's "funny".

And yes, we DO have a word for that.....and it isn't "funny"

And yes, I would care and be just as outraged no matter who you put in that chair. So don' try to justify yourself by trying to blame it on political prejudice.

 
 
 
JBB
6.4.13  JBB  replied to  Raven Wing @6.4.12    4 months ago

That was aptly, concisely and fairly stated...

 
 
 
JohnRussell
7  JohnRussell    4 months ago

EAP_Ky8U8AAgZio?format=jpg&name=large

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
7.1  author  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh  replied to  JohnRussell @7    4 months ago

Robert Mueller is well aware that there can be no obstruction if a crime was not committed.

 
 
 
pat wilson
7.1.2  pat wilson  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @7.1    4 months ago

He never said any such thing.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
7.1.3  Ozzwald  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @7.1    4 months ago

Robert Mueller is well aware that there can be no obstruction if a crime was not committed.

You keep repeating this although it has been shown to be an untrue statement many many times.

Joseph-Goebbels.jpg

 
 
 
Ronin2
7.2  Ronin2  replied to  JohnRussell @7    4 months ago

The reason Mueller is "not going to .... get into that at this juncture.", is that he is full of shit. 

Same reason he didn't make a charge at the conclusion of his investigation.

But keep spinning as hard as you can John. He will never say those magical words you and left so desperately need to hear.

 
 
 
katrix
7.2.1  katrix  replied to  Ronin2 @7.2    4 months ago
Same reason he didn't make a charge at the conclusion of his investigation

Did you even read the report? He said he didn't make any charges because of the DOJ precedent to not indict a sitting President, and specifically said the report did NOT exonerate Trump.

 
 
 
Tessylo
7.2.2  Tessylo  replied to  katrix @7.2.1    4 months ago

It's been pointed out time and time and time and time and time and time again, yet they go back to the same old bullshit.  

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
7.2.3  Sean Treacy  replied to  katrix @7.2.1    4 months ago
e said he didn't make any charges because of the DOJ precedent to not indict a sitting Presiden

No he didn't. In fact, he issued a statement confirming that did he not say that but for the OLC opinion, he would have found the President obstructed justice. 

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
7.2.4  author  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh  replied to  Tessylo @7.2.2    4 months ago

Who's they? For the tenure of your membership here you have expressed a belief in the disproved Russian Collusion Hoax. So it's possible the same conclusion can be reached on your statements.

 
 
 
Tessylo
7.2.5  Tessylo  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @7.2.4    4 months ago

Robert Mueller Says Donald Trump Could Be Charged When He Leaves Office

During his testimony before the House Judiciary Committee, the former special counsel agreed that the president could be charged with obstruction of justice.

Former special counsel Robert Mueller acknowledged Wednesday that President Donald Trump could feasibly be charged with obstruction of justice after he left office.

While being questioned by Rep. Ken Buck (R-Colo.) during testimony in front of the House Judiciary Committee, Mueller agreed that authorities could charge the president with a crime

“You could charge the president of the United States with obstruction of justice after he left office?” Buck asked.

“Yes,” Mueller responded.

Mueller wrote in the report that he personally couldn’t make the call on whether the president committed a crime during the investigation. Instead, he cited an Office of Legal Counsel opinion saying a sitting president couldn’t be indicted. His testimony on Wednesday makes it clear that that opinion doesn’t hold once the president leaves office. 

 
 
 
Snuffy
7.2.6  Snuffy  replied to  Tessylo @7.2.5    4 months ago

I'm not so sure anything would happen.  There's a lot of 'could be' in your post. That's understandable but any 'could be' can also be covered by 'won't be'. 

As Mueller punted on the obstruction charge, he by default left it with the AG who then decided that Trump would not be charged with obstruction. So I would think that it's unlikely any charges would be brought up after Trump leaves office.

 
 
 
Tessylo
7.2.7  Tessylo  replied to  Snuffy @7.2.6    4 months ago

Of course Barr wouldn't charge him with obstruction.  The turd hired him for that reason alone.  He was put in place just for that reason.  His resume was his review of Mueller's report.  

 
 
 
Ronin2
7.2.8  Ronin2  replied to  Tessylo @7.2.7    4 months ago

Go ahead and charge Trump for obstruction once he leaves office. Have fun with that one. I am sure the tax payers will love the waste of money.

I am sure heir Mueller will be happy to go through a long drawn out trial and have every one of his, and his team of Hillary and Obama sycophants, findings and decisions picked apart in a court of law.  I am sure none of them had any ethics violations, or abuse any power; and will welcome light being shed on them.

 
 
 
Tessylo
7.2.9  Tessylo  replied to  Ronin2 @7.2.8    4 months ago

Don't you mean Herr Mueller?  I get it.  jrSmiley_82_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
7.2.10  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Ronin2 @7.2.8    4 months ago
I am sure the tax payers will love the waste of money

It's definitely not a waste of money to put criminals in jail. Donald Trump is a criminal who currently enjoys a political position that keeps him from being indicted. When that political cover expires he will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

 
 
 
Tessylo
7.2.11  Tessylo  replied to  Ronin2 @7.2.8    4 months ago

So you didn't mind all the taxpayer money spent on the endless investigations against Hillary where they found NOTHING?

Got it.   

 
 
 
Ronin2
7.2.12  Ronin2  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @7.2.10    4 months ago

Good luck with that. Trump has more than enough money, and supporters to fund him further, to get defense lawyers to eviscerate Mueller and his team of Hillary and Obama sycophants. Or do you think they won't be called to testify, after all emails, documents, and findings are given to the defense team to tear apart?

All they have to prove is bias, and it will be over. 

 
 
 
Ronin2
7.2.13  Ronin2  replied to  Tessylo @7.2.11    4 months ago

Right, Comey didn't find anything because he wasn't looking.

So you are correct, his investigation was a complete waste of tax payer money.

 
 
 
Dulay
7.2.14  Dulay  replied to  Ronin2 @7.2.12    4 months ago
Trump has more than enough money, and supporters to fund him further, to get defense lawyers to eviscerate Mueller and his team of Hillary and Obama sycophants.

Then WHY is Trump using DOJ lawyers to defend him in court? 

 
 
 
Tessylo
7.2.16  Tessylo  replied to  Ronin2 @7.2.12    4 months ago

Did they prove bias?

 
 
 
MrFrost
7.2.17  MrFrost  replied to  Ronin2 @7.2.12    4 months ago
Good luck with that. Trump has more than enough money, and supporters to fund him further, to get defense lawyers to eviscerate Mueller and his team of Hillary and Obama sycophants. Or do you think they won't be called to testify, after all emails, documents, and findings are given to the defense team to tear apart?

So you are saying committing crimes is ok as long as you can afford to get out of being persecuted for it? 

Well, there goes the, "party of personal responsibility" BS. 

 
 
 
MrFrost
7.2.18  MrFrost  replied to  Ronin2 @7.2.13    4 months ago
Right, Comey didn't find anything because he wasn't looking.

If he was in Hillary's corner, why would he announce to the country that she was under investigation by the FBI.... twice. Please, do tell us how that helped her election?

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
7.2.19  author  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh  replied to  MrFrost @7.2.17    4 months ago

Three years later, no one found a crime. Waste of time, total fake news. 

It's time to move on.

We get it, it's Trump but your party wasted the people's time and money. 

384

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
8  Sean Treacy    4 months ago

I have no idea what the Democrats were thinking calling this hearing.  It was never going to get better for them then  after the press statement where Mueller was shielded from questions.  

It's exposed Mueller as, to put it charitably, a figurehead who is unfamiliar with the basic facts of his investigation and confirmed the Republican talking point that the Mueller investigation consisted of partisan Democrats running a partisan investigation.  The "Mueller" Investigation was the Democrats wet dream and the best they could do is claim they couldn't "exonerate" the President, which is not their job to begin with.

Impeachment already failed after the report was released, the incompetence of Mueller on public display  just put a nail in another attempt.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
8.1  JohnRussell  replied to  Sean Treacy @8    4 months ago

What this hearing has shown is that Trump should be impeached. Mueller verified every instance of obstruction of justice listed in the report. 

Tellingly, not one Republican on this committee asked a question related to the alleged facts about obstruction of justice. 

The Republican effort was solely to question the integrity of Mueller and his team and now to claim that he is confused.  They gave no attention to the alleged facts of the obstruction of justice. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
8.1.1  Sean Treacy  replied to  JohnRussell @8.1    4 months ago

They already tried to impeach him after the report and didn't have the votes

Good luck trying again after today. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
8.1.2  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @8.1    4 months ago
What this hearing has shown is that Trump should be impeached. Mueller verified every instance of obstruction of justice listed in the report.

While I hate to be the one to burst your bubble, Democrats couldn't get enough votes for impeachment. Don't you remember that--it was VERY recently they HAD the vote, which failed.

Absolutely nothing new revealed today so I don't see the votes changing.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
8.1.3  JohnRussell  replied to  Texan1211 @8.1.2    4 months ago

Robert Mueller verified every one of the instances of obstruction of justice that the Democrats read from the report.  That is the bottom line. 

He was asked by Ted Lieu if the reason Trump wasnt indicted for obstruction of justice was because he is president, and Mueller said yes. 

They need nothing more to begin impeachment. 

 
 
 
dennis smith
8.1.4  dennis smith  replied to  JohnRussell @8.1.3    4 months ago

Robert Mueller verified every one of the instances of obstruction of justice that the Democrats read from the report. That is the bottom line.

The report spoke for itself and the hearing did nothing to change that. 

Please encourage the Dems to begin impeachment hearings so we can be assured of Republican control of both houses of congress in 2020 and 4 more years of Trump as POTUS.

 
 
 
Snuffy
8.1.5  Snuffy  replied to  JohnRussell @8.1.3    4 months ago

But they had all of that before today and they couldn't get the votes for impeachment. I believe the Dem's think that this show will increase public awareness and improve the popularity of impeachment. That and I believe the Dems want to keep this entire affair in front of the public for the 2020 elections. Party politics at work.

I doubt if todays' hearings will make much difference in public polling or improve the odds for impeachment.

 
 
 
katrix
8.1.6  katrix  replied to  Snuffy @8.1.5    4 months ago
But they had all of that before today and they couldn't get the votes for impeachment

Because they know the Republicans would block it - they don't care what Trump has done - so what would be the point?  Besides, even if the Republicans went along with the impeachment, what would happen next? Nothing. Any more than it happened when Clinton was impeached.

As partisan as everyone is, impeachment is really a joke, nothing more than a severe rebuke. Congress will never agree to actually remove a president from office after he/she is impeached, unless maybe he/she kills someone. And maybe not even then. I wonder if Nixon would have been removed from office if he hadn't resigned? We'll never know. I know damn well that Trump is no more likely to voluntarily leave office than Clinton was; maybe even less likely, due to his ego; so again, what's the point? What did impeaching Clinton actually accomplish except put the word "blow job" into acceptable use in news stories?

But sometimes I'm not sure the average American realizes that impeachment doesn't mean removal from office; it means very little initially.

 
 
 
katrix
8.1.7  katrix  replied to  Snuffy @8.1.5    4 months ago
I doubt if todays' hearings will make much difference in public polling or improve the odds for impeachment.

You've got that right. Those who refuse to believe Trump has done anything wrong will never accept what Mueller's report actually says, and that it DOES show that Trump repeatedly attempted to obstruct justice.

And those who understand what it actually says will hopefully realize how futile the idea of impeachment is.

Back to the drawing board, and start muting all the damn political ads.

 
 
 
r.t..b...
8.1.8  r.t..b...  replied to  katrix @8.1.7    4 months ago
Those who refuse to believe Trump has done anything wrong will never accept what Mueller's report actually says,

Posted just two days ago (and not that it is a revelation, just don't want to type it again):

"Public opinion is pretty much set in stone at this juncture, regardless of new revelations. The Democrats will be coerced into holding impeachment hearings as the candidates, playing to those they need to assuage, will demand it. The GOP will continue to deny any need for accountability for anything oozing from the Resident, and will deftly [add cynically] suggest investigations into previous administrations are more pressing. And Mueller, a man mutually respected and above approach when this whole thing started, will become a pariah, while the media, pundits, and posters will be apoplectic in their self-righteous indignation.        Just another day in a long string of daze."

Bring on 2020 when this sad episode can be put to the only real test. 

 
 
 
Sunshine
8.1.9  Sunshine  replied to  katrix @8.1.7    4 months ago
Those who refuse to believe Trump has done anything wrong will never accept what Mueller's report actually says, and that it DOES show that Trump repeatedly attempted to obstruct justice.

Congress can proceed with the Articles of Impeachment but at this point they can hardly get a third of the Democrats to approve.  No reason to blame the citizens for what the Democrat held Congress can't achieve.  

 
 
 
katrix
8.1.10  katrix  replied to  Sunshine @8.1.9    4 months ago
Congress can proceed with the Articles of Impeachment but at this point they can hardly get a third of the Democrats to approve.  No reason to blame the citizens for what the Democrat held Congress can't achieve.

Hell, I don't support proceeding with Articles of Impeachment. As I mentioned above, I think it's useless; it's not like anything would happen if Trump were impeached, any more than it happened when Clinton was impeached.

 
 
 
Sunshine
8.1.11  Sunshine  replied to  katrix @8.1.10    4 months ago
I think it's useless; it's not like anything would happen if Trump were impeached,

It's about 2020...Democrats can't beat Trump in 2020.  Do you really think the Democrat Caucus care about this obstruction of justice bullcrap?  

 
 
 
Texan1211
8.1.12  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @8.1.3    4 months ago
They need nothing more to begin impeachment.

Democrats already had the Great Mueller Report and STILL failed to garner enough votes.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
8.1.13  Ozzwald  replied to  Sunshine @8.1.11    4 months ago
It's about 2020...Democrats can't beat Trump in 2020.  Do you really think the Democrat Caucus care about this obstruction of justice bullcrap?

There is not a single poll that doesn't show every single Democrat running beating Trump, let alone the front runners.

 
 
 
Sunshine
8.1.14  Sunshine  replied to  Ozzwald @8.1.13    4 months ago
There is not a single poll that doesn't show every single Democrat running beating Trump,

You know polls don't me squat..just ask Hil.

Maybe the Dems have learned something! jrSmiley_86_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Ozzwald
8.1.15  Ozzwald  replied to  Sunshine @8.1.14    4 months ago
You know polls don't me squat..just ask Hil.

That's fine.  Then please provide a link to where it says that Trump is favored.  You must have seen it somewhere legitimate, didn't you?

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
8.1.16  Freedom Warrior  replied to  Ozzwald @8.1.13    4 months ago

 Pretty sure that Poll didn’t ask the 2020 electoral college voters.

 
 
 
Sunshine
8.1.17  Sunshine  replied to  Ozzwald @8.1.15    4 months ago

Do you even know who Hil is?

Hillary was polling ahead of Trump up until the election, do you understand now?

 
 
 
Ozzwald
8.1.18  Ozzwald  replied to  Freedom Warrior @8.1.16    4 months ago

Pretty sure that Poll didn’t ask the 2020 electoral college voters.

Why don't you provide a list of them then?

 
 
 
Ozzwald
8.1.19  Ozzwald  replied to  Sunshine @8.1.17    4 months ago

Hillary was polling ahead of Trump up until the election, do you understand now?

So, you are saying that Hillary is running again in 2020, and Trump is favored over her?  Please provide links to this claim.

 
 
 
Sunshine
8.1.20  Sunshine  replied to  Ozzwald @8.1.19    4 months ago

Oh good grief...you are just being a silly goose now.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
8.1.21  Ozzwald  replied to  Sunshine @8.1.20    4 months ago

Oh good grief...you are just being a silly goose now.

Your the one that brought up Hillary while talking about polls for the 2020 election.

 
 
 
Sparty On
8.1.22  Sparty On  replied to  Ozzwald @8.1.21    4 months ago

And you wonder why people don't take you seriously ......

 
 
 
MrFrost
8.1.23  MrFrost  replied to  Sunshine @8.1.17    4 months ago

Hillary was polling ahead of Trump up until the election, do you understand now?

Do you understand that polls are  meaningless in presidential elections? I know this has been explained to you at least three times by me, so I will assume it's willful ignorance. 

 
 
 
Ozzwald
8.1.24  Ozzwald  replied to  Sparty On @8.1.22    4 months ago

And you wonder why people don't take you seriously ......

And yet you are responding to a comment of mine......hmmmm.

 
 
 
Sparty On
8.1.25  Sparty On  replied to  Ozzwald @8.1.24    4 months ago

Doesn’t change a thing in context uuummhummm .....

 
 
 
Ozzwald
8.1.26  Ozzwald  replied to  Sparty On @8.1.25    4 months ago
Doesn’t change a thing in context uuummhummm .

Still responding..............jrSmiley_90_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Sparty On
8.1.27  Sparty On  replied to  Ozzwald @8.1.26    4 months ago

Still meaningless in context .... keep it up!

 
 
 
JohnRussell
9  JohnRussell    4 months ago
Nicholas Kristof
@NickKristof
·
42m
As of now, I'd say the big news so far from the #MuellerHearings is this:
: " The reason...you did not indict Donald Trump is because of OLC opinion stating that you cannot indict a sitting president, correct?" Mueller: "That is correct."
 
 
 
Sean Treacy
9.1  Sean Treacy  replied to  JohnRussell @9    4 months ago
not indict Donald Trump is because of OLC opinion stating that you cannot indict a sitting president, correct?" Mueller: "That is correct."

So he was lying last month then?

Not a good look. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
9.1.1  JohnRussell  replied to  Sean Treacy @9.1    4 months ago

Sean, please point out to us one Republican on that committee who took issue with the facts on obstruction of justice as laid out in volume two of the report. 

I'll save you the thought process. There were none. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
9.2  Sean Treacy  replied to  JohnRussell @9    4 months ago

Whoops!

He sure walked that back after being coached at break.  Perjury risk avoided!  

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
9.3  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @9    4 months ago
" The reason...you did not indict Donald Trump is because of OLC opinion stating that you cannot indict a sitting president, correct?" Mueller: "That is correct."

Except that Mueller took that back in his opening statement before the House Intelligence Committee;

In his second hearing of the day before the House Intelligence Committee, Mueller walked back what he said in response to a Democratic congressman on the Judiciary Committee hours earlier.

“Now, before we go to questions, I want to add a correction to my testimony this morning," Mueller said Wednesday afternoon. “I want to go back to one thing that was said this morning by Mr. Lieu who said, and I quote, ‘You didn't charge the president because of the OLC opinion.’”

Mueller, who had agreed with Rep. Ted Lieu in the first hearing, said he now disagreed with that framing.

“That is not the correct way to say it,” Mueller said. “As we say in the report and as I said at the opening, we did not reach a determination as to whether the president committed a crime.”

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/robert-mueller-provides-correction-to-testimony-about-not-charging-trump


Possible explanation for the contradiction: Mueller had already said we never reached a determination. The OLC statement probably was added by Weissmann!



 
 
 
Ozzwald
9.3.1  Ozzwald  replied to  Vic Eldred @9.3    4 months ago
Possible explanation for the contradiction: Mueller had already said we never reached a determination.

Reaching.  Mueller stated that the OLC opinion was the only reason he was not allowed to make the determination.  You're trying to argue semantics.

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
9.3.2  Freedom Warrior  replied to  Ozzwald @9.3.1    4 months ago

 There was nothing semantical about the face plant and stake through the heart that Mueller suffered in that admission.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
9.3.3  Ozzwald  replied to  Freedom Warrior @9.3.2    4 months ago
There was nothing semantical about the face plant and stake through the heart that Mueller suffered in that admission.

The admission that he did not even try to make a determination about obstruction because of the OLC?  The same thing he stated in the report itself?

He DID NOT state Trump was guilty of obstruction

because

he DID NOT determine Trump was guilty

because

he COULD NOT make the determination

because

OLC opinion prevented him from doing so.

The biggest telling point was when he stated that the same evidence could be used to charge Trump after he leaves office.  This means that Mueller feels the evidence is there for at least 8 out of 14 obstruction charges.

 
 
 
Sunshine
10  Sunshine    4 months ago

Are the Democrats slobbering all over Mueller?  Yeppers.

They know his credibility and report is in serious jeopardy.

 
 
 
Tessylo
11  Tessylo    4 months ago

They know his credibility and report is in serious jeopardy.

Nope and nope

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
12  author  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh    4 months ago

512

 
 
 
Tessylo
12.1  Tessylo  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @12    4 months ago

67448870_10220162227552724_5448534463040

 
 
 
JohnRussell
13  JohnRussell    4 months ago

The first hearing is over. The main takeaways

Mueller believes Trump should be impeached. 

The Republicans completely avoided the facts of the alleged obstruction of justice, instead spending most of their time alleging conspiracy theories regarding the investigation. 

The best way to resolve all these issues is to impeach Trump. 

Mueller looked like a tired 74 year old man. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
13.1  Sean Treacy  replied to  JohnRussell @13    4 months ago

Do you think Mueller read, let alone wrote, his report?

His ignorance of  basic facts contained in "his" report  was astounding. Why would anyone give his opinon any weight? 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
13.1.1  JohnRussell  replied to  Sean Treacy @13.1    4 months ago

Of course. 

I think his age and the speed of the questions threw him off. 

The right will be joyful because they feel they got shots in on Mueller.  Unfortunately not one of them disputed the facts the Democrats were reading to Mueller, facts which Mueller entirely confirmed, without exception. 

 
 
 
katrix
13.1.2  katrix  replied to  Sean Treacy @13.1    4 months ago
His ignorance of  basic facts contained in "his" report  was astounding. Why would anyone give his opinon any weight?

On that note, why would you give Trump's claims of not doing anything wrong any weight, when his responses to the questionnaire consisted mostly of not being able to remember, when he supposedly has one of the great memories of all time? Seems if he didn't do anything wrong, he would remember it.

 
 
 
1stwarrior
13.1.3  1stwarrior  replied to  katrix @13.1.2    4 months ago

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Hillary Clinton, under questioning by federal investigators over whether she had been briefed on how to preserve government records as she was about to leave the State Department, said she had suffered a concussion, was working part-time and could not recall every briefing she received.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-clinton-emails/clinton-tells-fbi-she-could-not-recall-all-briefings-on-preserving-documents-idUSKCN11829I

Funny how that works, eh?
 
 
 
Sean Treacy
13.1.4  Sean Treacy  replied to  katrix @13.1.2    4 months ago
Seems if he didn't do anything wrong, he would remember it.

Well that makes no sense. 

 
 
 
WallyW
13.1.5  WallyW  replied to  JohnRussell @13.1.1    4 months ago

What 'facts' are you talking about.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
13.1.6  JohnRussell  replied to  WallyW @13.1.5    4 months ago

What facts are you talking about. 

 
 
 
tomwcraig
13.1.7  tomwcraig  replied to  katrix @13.1.2    4 months ago

Because our entire legal system is based on the concept of INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY.  What everyone claiming Trump should be impeached or committed a crime is saying is "GUILTY UNTIL PROVEN INNOCENT".  That is anathema to this country's legal system and is more in keeping with Stalin's Soviet Union than the United State of America.  Are you a Soviet, katrix?

 
 
 
Dulay
13.1.8  Dulay  replied to  1stwarrior @13.1.3    4 months ago
Funny how that works, eh?

Yet your whataboutism falls epically short. 

Clinton was asked about an event that happened 7 years prior to the question. 

Trump was asked about events that happened at most, 2 1/2 years prior to the questions. Trump and his lawyers also had all the time in the world to review Trump's tweets, campaign emails and other documents to assist Trump in 'refreshing his recollection' before responding.

Ironically, Trump stated in his replies that one reason that he didn't recall was that it been a whole 2 years since the event. 

I realize that it's hard but it would be great if one standard was proffered...

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
13.1.9  Freedom Warrior  replied to  JohnRussell @13.1.1    4 months ago

 That’s sounds like you think Mueller is senile 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
13.2  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @13    4 months ago
The main takeaways

Mueller was incoherent

Report & letter was staff driven

The reports credibility has been eroded

The dems in the House Intelligence Committee would cancel the second hearing if they could!

 
 
 
JohnRussell
13.2.1  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @13.2    4 months ago

Vic, I will ask you what I asked Sean. Please name one Republican , out of the 20 or so,  that offered a rebuttal to the facts of obstruction of justice alleged in the report.  Again, there was none. 

 
 
 
MrFrost
13.2.2  MrFrost  replied to  Vic Eldred @13.2    4 months ago
The dems in the House Intelligence Committee would cancel the second hearing if they could!

Proof? Looks like the repubs are getting beaten up with their, "spin, deflect and deny" strategy.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
13.2.3  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @13.2.1    4 months ago
that offered a rebuttal to the facts of obstruction of justice alleged in the report. 

A rebuttal? to that trivia?  You think you can impeach with those private conversations that Weissmann teed up for the House? 

I think the problem lies with your fellow democrats - the democrats who have voted against impeachment already.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
13.2.4  Vic Eldred  replied to  MrFrost @13.2.2    4 months ago
Looks like the repubs are getting beaten up with their, "spin, deflect and deny" strategy.

Are you really calling that hearing a victory?  In that case you aren't going to like anything I see in my crystal ball. Did you hear hear what Devin Nunes read into the record this afternoon?  Clue; It has to do with the origins of all of the Russia/Trump investigations.

 
 
 
MrFrost
13.2.5  MrFrost  replied to  Vic Eldred @13.2.4    4 months ago
Are you really calling that hearing a victory? 

I don't see it as a contest, it's about truth. What I find comical is the right supporting anything Mueller says that comes close to supporting trump and calling the rest of it lies and BS. Either Mueller told the truth in this hearing and his report or he didn't. 

 
 
 
WallyW
13.2.6  WallyW  replied to  JohnRussell @13.2.1    4 months ago

There were no facts supporting obstruction  to rebut.

Their intention was to discredit the senile, evasive and lying Mueller.

They succeeded bigly

 
 
 
WallyW
13.2.7  WallyW  replied to  MrFrost @13.2.5    4 months ago

Obviously he forgot what the truth is or was

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
13.2.8  Sean Treacy  replied to  WallyW @13.2.6    4 months ago

"The person who learned the most about the Mueller Report today was Bob Mueller."  Trey Gowdy

 
 
 
JohnRussell
13.2.9  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @13.2    4 months ago
The reports credibility has been eroded

How? 

 
 
 
XDm9mm
13.2.10  XDm9mm  replied to  WallyW @13.2.7    4 months ago
Obviously he forgot what the truth is or was

Watching him today, I was wondering if he remembered his name or where he was.

 
 
 
Texan1211
13.2.11  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @13.2.1    4 months ago

John, please relate one fact learned for the very first time from Mueller's testimony.

 
 
 
WallyW
13.2.12  WallyW  replied to  Sean Treacy @13.2.8    4 months ago

jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
bugsy
13.2.13  bugsy  replied to  Texan1211 @13.2.11    4 months ago

Come on now...do you think you will get an answer?

I asked him to provide any bit of proof of the hundreds of "hate Trump" articles over the past few years and he never was able to provide any. Because I asked him several times, I am not allowed to respond to him or post on his seeds until sometime next month (a total of 6 months). 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
13.2.14  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @13.2.9    4 months ago

Because Americans were told for years that we had a traitorous President in a corrupt pact with Russia and that Robert Mueller was the man who was going to prove it. After the report was released Americans learned that it was just a political narrative and today Americans got to see and hear the man who led the investigation. How many people now think that Mueller even ran it?  Some may question if he even read the report. 

Do you want House democrats to continue? If they do, they go forward without public support.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
13.2.15  Ozzwald  replied to  Vic Eldred @13.2.14    4 months ago
Because Americans were told for years that we had a traitorous President in a corrupt pact with Russia and that Robert Mueller was the man who was going to prove it.

And he did in his report.  Did you forget that he outlined over 120 contacts between his staff and Russian politicians, agents, and oligarchs?

After the report was released Americans learned that it was just a political narrative and today Americans got to see and hear the man who led the investigation.

And they learned that from Barr's "summary" not from the report itself.

How many people now think that Mueller even ran it?  Some may question if he even read the report. 

3?

Do you want House democrats to continue? If they do, they go forward without public support.

Since when do Republicans give a rat's ass about public support?  Very very few of the policies they enact have a majority of support.

 
 
 
MrFrost
13.2.16  MrFrost  replied to  WallyW @13.2.7    4 months ago
Obviously he forgot what the truth is or was

So when Mueller said he found no collusion, there was actually a lot of it. Got it. Thanks for verifying that. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
15  Texan1211    4 months ago
Mueller believes Trump should be impeached.

Please provide a direct quote from Mueller himself to prove that claim.

The best way to resolve all these issues is to impeach Trump.

The Democrats already proved they don't have the votes OR the cojones for it.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
15.1  JohnRussell  replied to  Texan1211 @15    4 months ago

There a number of hints. 

At the end of the hearing one of the representatives asked him if his report concluded that impeachment was a remedy and he concurred. 

 
 
 
1stwarrior
15.1.1  1stwarrior  replied to  JohnRussell @15.1    4 months ago

NOTHING in the report gave any CONCLUSION that impeachment was a remedy.

Where do you dream this stuff up, John?

 
 
 
loki12
15.2  loki12  replied to  Texan1211 @15    4 months ago

OMG, Mueller blinked during a question, he signaling that trump killed Hoffa, Now he took a drink of water....and then picked it back up and drank again, he is signaling that there is more to trump killing Hoffa!

Texan, you obviously are not equipped to see these obvious signals and coded messages, You have to be at least a 5th level dumbass with the Maddow decoder ring, and specially designed tinfoil hat to receive the obvious subtext of what he is saying.

 
 
 
Texan1211
15.2.1  Texan1211  replied to  loki12 @15.2    4 months ago

I am so sorry but fortunately, I was raised to think for myself.

Some of these "elite" progressive liberals and some Democrats can't do that.

If you find a stray decoder ring, though, pass it on!!!

LOL!

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
16  author  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh    4 months ago

384

 
 
 
MrFrost
17  MrFrost    4 months ago

Favorite line of questioning was that idiot Lesko. She seriously tried to claim bias because Mueller didn't use fox news* as a source as much as other outlets. Well gee Debbie, maybe that's because fox is nothing but far right wing propaganda/state run media and they are unreliable asshats. Most normal republicans know this. 

.

Then of course there was the standard issue, "But her emails...." BS.

.

Deflection and spin, it's all the (R)'s had. 

At the end of the day, it's obvious trump obstructed justice, and even if you don't believe that, he DID try to obstruct justice, which is also a crime. 

No matter how you slice it, spin it, deflect it, trump is a criminal. 

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
17.1  author  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh  replied to  MrFrost @17    4 months ago

You had a favorite line?

A little something for everyone I suppose.....

However there can not be obstruction when their is no underlying crime. 

 
 
 
MrFrost
17.1.1  MrFrost  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @17.1    4 months ago

he DID try to obstruct justice, which is also a crime. 

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
17.1.2  author  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh  replied to  MrFrost @17.1.1    4 months ago

There can be no obstruction unless there is an underlying crime. It's well it's just the law.

384

 
 
 
MrFrost
17.1.4  MrFrost  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @17.1.2    4 months ago

he DID try to obstruct justice, which is also a crime. 

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
17.1.5  author  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh  replied to  MrFrost @17.1.4    4 months ago

Yes, you might be correct but the DOJ does not pursue obstruction when there is no underlying crime. If there is no collusion which isn't a crime and there wasn't another crime they are pursuing with indictment, they do not pursue obstruction. 

No crime, no obstruction. It's law, it's also Doj policy.

 
 
 
devangelical
17.1.6  devangelical  replied to  MrFrost @17.1.1    4 months ago

Trump is an unindicted co-conspirator for the crime that Cohen is now doing prison time.

 
 
 
MrFrost
17.1.7  MrFrost  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @17.1.5    4 months ago
If there is no collusion which isn't a crime

Conspiracy is. 

Paraphrasing: 

Leiu: "If trump wasn't the POTUS, would you have charged him with a crime?"

Mueller: "Yes". 

Just a wild guess here, but I am betting that Muller knows more about the law than you do. 

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
17.1.8  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @17.1.5    4 months ago
Yes, you might be correct but the DOJ does not pursue obstruction when there is no underlying crime.

Total and complete nonsense. Do you really believe if you repeat it enough it will somehow magically become true?

"You can obstruct justice even if a prosecutor ultimately finds you were not guilty of committing the crime that was the focus of the underlying investigation," said Miriam Baer, a professor at Brooklyn Law School. "Even if a prosecutor ultimately concluded that you weren’t guilty of crime X, that says nothing as to whether you thought that you might be indicted for crime X, or, for that matter, if you thought one of your friends of family members would be indicted for crime X."

Eric Posner, a professor at the University of Chicago Law School, agreed that an obstruction prosecution could have been argued in this case.

"Suppose Trump knew that no crime had been committed but believed that the investigation would uncover politically or personally embarrassing information, or if he believed that the investigation would embarrass or implicate an ally, aide, or family member," Posner said. "Then interfering with the investigation is a crime. The reason is that the purpose of the investigation is to find the truth, and if people obstruct an investigation, then the investigation becomes more difficult, wasting government resources."

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2019/mar/25/martha-stewart-donald-trump-can-there-be-obstructi/

"in January, a Navy captain in Florida was indicted on a charge of obstruction of justice after he allegedly misled investigators about his extramarital affair with a civilian employee’s spouse. Of course, adultery is not a crime. But interfering with an investigation to cover up adultery certainly is."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2019/03/26/barr-is-wrong-obstruction-justice-doesnt-require-another-underlying-crime/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.9aee729d9532

The only thing in your comment that was true is when you said "Yes, you might be correct" in reply to "he (Trump) DID try to obstruct justice, which is also a crime".

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
17.1.9  author  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh  replied to  MrFrost @17.1.7    4 months ago

My wife's Mom's uncle's daughter's Doctor has a friend that is a constitutional lawyer and she said no. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
17.1.10  Tessylo  replied to  MrFrost @17.1.4    4 months ago
'he DID try to obstruct justice, which is also a crime.'

EXACTAMUNDO!

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
17.1.11  author  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh  replied to  Tessylo @17.1.10    4 months ago

The underlying crime turned out to be a hoax.

512

 
 
 
Tessylo
17.1.12  Tessylo  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @17.1.9    4 months ago

I'm not a lawyer but I spent last night at Holiday Inn.  

 
 
 
MrFrost
17.1.13  MrFrost  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @17.1.5    4 months ago
No crime, no obstruction. It's law, it's also Doj policy.

Is attempted murder a crime? Yes.

But attempted obstruction of justice...isn't? 

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
17.1.14  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @17.1.11    4 months ago
The underlying crime turned out to be a hoax.

As Mueller has pointed out numerous times today, the Russian election meddling was not a hoax. The contacts between the Trump campaign and Russian operatives were not a hoax. The 10 clear counts of obstruction laid out in the report were not a hoax.

Mueller said he recalled a range of problematic witnesses “including those not telling the whole truth and those who were outright liars.”

Rep. Val Demings asked Mueller whether it was correct to say that “lies impeded the investigation.”

Mueller responded: “I would generally agree with that.”

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
17.1.15  author  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @17.1.14    4 months ago

close your eyes and tell me what you see?

Ya got nothing!

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
17.1.16  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @17.1.15    4 months ago
close your eyes and tell me what you see?

Nah, I'd rather not do what virtually every Republican is doing. I'd rather watch the entire thing eyes wide open and draw conclusions on my own instead of waiting for some teleprompter reading talking head disseminating partisan talking points to think for me.

There is no doubt in my mind, after having read the report and watched Mueller yesterday, that the President did commit obstruction and that his aides lied to protect him which is why no direct conspiracy was found between his lying aides and Russian operatives. We know they were in contact, but their lies have kept the mob boss safe.

The facts so far are that Russia did attack our elections in favor of Donald Trump and at least half a dozen campaign staff had numerous contacts with Russian operatives where they were open to receiving dirt on their opponent from an enemy foreign government. We know that almost every one of those campaign staff lied to investigators about their contacts with Russian operatives. We know that Donald Trump then instructed his aides to lie about those contacts. We know Donald Trump asked the investigators to drop the investigation. When that didn't work, Trump ordered his aides to fire the lead investigator. Just because they didn't follow Trumps orders does not mean Trump isn't guilty of obstruction. And Mueller confirmed that the only reason they did not conclude that Trump had committed criminal obstruction of justice was because the OLC ruling that a sitting President cannot be indicted. Mueller also confirmed that the President can be charged with obstruction as soon as he leaves office, and I believe he will be arrested shortly after leaving office January 21, 2021. I don't think Democrats should impeach as it will just lead to a Pence presidency and Pence pardoning Donald in an effort to hide his own criminal involvement.

 
 
 
Tessylo
17.1.17  Tessylo  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @17.1.16    4 months ago
'I don't think Democrats should impeach as it will just lead to a Pence presidency and Pence pardoning Donald in an effort to hide his own criminal involvement.'

I believe that is why Nancy Pelosi is not pushing for impeachment.  She's smarter than any of the gop combined.  

 
 
 
Kathleen
17.1.18  Kathleen  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @17.1.11    4 months ago

That man gives me the creeps. His glaring eyes and head that does not look right.

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
18  author  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh    4 months ago

Schiff opening statement, back to collusion....lol

Who could forget this gold?

 
 
 
MrFrost
18.1  MrFrost  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @18    4 months ago

512

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
18.1.1  author  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh  replied to  MrFrost @18.1    4 months ago

If you want to meme or Photoshop, it better be original and good. You must bring it strong young padawan!

384

 
 
 
MrFrost
18.1.2  MrFrost  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @18.1.1    4 months ago

512

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
18.1.3  author  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh  replied to  MrFrost @18.1.2    4 months ago

Wow. Did you make that yourself or was it googled?

 
 
 
MrFrost
19  MrFrost    4 months ago

Weird that trump never once testified under oath. I wonder why? 

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
19.1  author  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh  replied to  MrFrost @19    4 months ago

384

 
 
 
Sunshine
19.2  Sunshine  replied to  MrFrost @19    4 months ago
Weird that trump never once testified under oath. I wonder why?

Maybe the same reason Hilly didn't.

https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/286849-fbi-didnt-record-clinton-interview-no-sworn-oath

 
 
 
MrFrost
19.2.1  MrFrost  replied to  Sunshine @19.2    4 months ago

Um, she testified under oath for 11 hours. 

https://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/10/22/451012235/clinton-endures-an-11-hour-grilling-before-benghazi-committee

But by all means, keep deflecting. LOL 

 
 
 
Sunshine
19.2.2  Sunshine  replied to  MrFrost @19.2.1    4 months ago
Um

You do know that is not an FBI or DOJ interrogation?  

 
 
 
MrFrost
19.2.3  MrFrost  replied to  Sunshine @19.2.2    4 months ago

It was under oath, which you claimed Hillary didn't do. I was right, you were wrong. Deal with it. 

 
 
 
Sunshine
19.2.4  Sunshine  replied to  MrFrost @19.2.3    4 months ago

I guess you don't know the difference.

 
 
 
MrFrost
19.2.5  MrFrost  replied to  Sunshine @19.2.4    4 months ago

512

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
19.2.6  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Sunshine @19.2.4    4 months ago

Between under oath, and NOT UNDER OATH ?

I believe some of US, might know, what your "Sunshine' wasn't bright enuff to illuminate.

She testified under OATH

Trump Pussed out , hows that grab U, like Trumpp?

 
 
 
Tessylo
19.2.7  Tessylo  replied to  MrFrost @19.2.5    4 months ago

jrSmiley_91_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Dulay
19.2.8  Dulay  replied to  Sunshine @19.2.2    4 months ago
You do know that is not an FBI or DOJ interrogation?

You do know that it doesn't matter what kind of Federal interrogation it was right? 

 
 
 
MrFrost
20  MrFrost    4 months ago

I'm not a big fan of Schiff, but he asked all the right questions. 

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
21  Dismayed Patriot    4 months ago
"As I said forth in the report after that investigation, if we had had confidence that the President clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so," - Robert Mueller

I wonder how Republicans would have reacted if that had been the conclusion in the Hillary Clinton email investigation:

"As I said forth in the report after that investigation, if we had had confidence that the Secretary of State Hillary Clinton clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so,"

Who am I kidding, I don't have to wonder how Republicans would have reacted, they would have immediately moved to indict her.

So we know Russia interfered, and the Trump campaign was encouraging their meddling even if we have no solid evidence of conspiracy. We also know that Trump attempted to kill the investigation numerous times in several different ways, from telling his aides to fire Mueller, telling them to lie, asking the FBI director to "see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go. He is a good guy. I hope you can let this go", asking his AG Jeff Sessions to un-recuse himself, he "dictated a message for Lewandowski to deliver to Sessions," the report says, the message instructed Sessions to publicly state the Mueller probe was "very unfair", and told his aides "not to publicly disclose the emails setting up the June 9 meeting, suggesting that the email would not leak and that the number of lawyers with access to them should be limited."

With all of that, Republican legislators continue to refuse to do their job of providing a check and balance of the executive branch because it's politically inconvenient for them. Sad.

 
 
 
katrix
21.1  katrix  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @21    4 months ago
I wonder how Republicans would have reacted if that had been the conclusion in the Hillary Clinton email investigation:

Hell, since they're still screeching "lock her up" - they'd probably have gone for execution.

It's disgusting that the Republican members of Congress refuse to do their damn jobs. And with Barr, Trump got exactly the toadie he wanted. It really sucks that so many people choose loyalty to a president over our country and their oath.

 
 
 
tomwcraig
21.2  tomwcraig  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @21    4 months ago

Dismayed Patriot,

You are forgetting the major difference between what Hillary Clinton did and what Trump is being accused of doing and what the levels of proof are for both.  For Obstruction, you have to prove criminal intent (ie they are actively trying to stop an investigation because they believe the investigation will throw light on their misdeeds).  For Negligence, it is they have to prove carelessness (ie they just didn't put something away in the proper manner.)  We can prove negligence regarding Hillary Clinton's emails, which is a crime under the Espionage Act of 1917.  Can you prove criminal intent on the part of Trump regarding the discussion of firing Mueller, which firing actually did not happen?

 
 
 
Tessylo
21.2.1  Tessylo  replied to  tomwcraig @21.2    4 months ago
'We can prove negligence regarding Hillary Clinton's emails,'

With your several classes in law, you're the legal expert for sure.

jrSmiley_18_smiley_image.gif

The Clinton defense, but, but, her e-mails.  

giphy.gif

 
 
 
tomwcraig
21.2.2  tomwcraig  replied to  Tessylo @21.2.1    4 months ago

Read the comment I replied to.  I did not bring up her emails, I pointed out the difference between what is needed as proof between the email case and obstruction.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
21.2.3  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  tomwcraig @21.2    4 months ago
Can you prove criminal intent on the part of Trump regarding the discussion of firing Mueller, which firing actually did not happen?

There were 10 clear cases of obstruction in the report if you had cared to read it. Obstruction of justice does not require "criminal intent" as point out by Eric Posner, a professor at the University of Chicago Law School. All that has to exist is evidence that a person took steps to block or stop an ongoing investigation into themselves, an ally, aide or family member. It could have simply been to prevent something embarrassing but not illegal from being exposed, it's still obstruction.

"Suppose Trump knew that no crime had been committed but believed that the investigation would uncover politically or personally embarrassing information, or if he believed that the investigation would embarrass or implicate an ally, aide, or family member," Posner said. "Then interfering with the investigation is a crime. The reason is that the purpose of the investigation is to find the truth, and if people obstruct an investigation, then the investigation becomes more difficult, wasting government resources."

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2019/mar/25/martha-stewart-donald-trump-can-there-be-obstructi/

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
21.2.4  author  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @21.2.3    4 months ago

He obstructed the investigation into the Russian collusion Hoax?

sounds serious, death penalty?

Turned over a million docs, no executive privileged ?

You know how this sounds don't  you? Cra cra......

but then again, what are you going to talk about for 2020? Polling shows america is firm on wanting the border secured. No one wants to decriminalize illegal immigration except a few moonbats. Then of course in a good economy with exceptional unemployment numbers we want to reverse course with free medical, free college and higher taxes?

Good luck with that.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
21.2.5  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @21.2.4    4 months ago
He obstructed the investigation into the Russian collusion Hoax?

He obstructed the investigation into his campaign ties with Russian operatives that DID happen no matter how much you wish they hadn't. He obstructed the investigation into Russian election meddling which DID happen, it was not a hoax. The Mueller report shows that they were unable to find evidence of collusion but acknowledge that because of the obstruction and numerous Trump aides who lied to investigators, the truth about possible Russian conspiracy with the Trump campaign may never be known, the primary participants are all lying.

And even if there was no coordination or conspiracy by anyone on the Trump campaign and Russian operatives who were offering dirt on Hillary and wanting something of value in return, the removal of sanctions and killing of the Magnitsky act, Trump still obstructed the investigation which is a crime even if there was no underlying crime of conspiracy. I am certain that he will be arrested and convicted after he leaves office because the evidence is overwhelming to anyone with even a cursory understanding of the law.

Those claiming it's all a "hoax" obviously haven't read the report. I highly recommend every American read it even though much is a dry recitation of facts found by the investigation. And even though the report doesn't draw a conclusion on criminal obstruction, it clearly sets out the evidence for the one body legally allowed to be the check and balance on the executive, which is congress. Thankfully, the American people spoke loud and clear in 2018 with more than 10 million more votes for Democrats than for Republicans which gave the leadership responsibility to a group willing to do their jobs of oversight instead of the useless sycophant Republican legislation that was cuckold by Trump and his cronies over the last two years.

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
21.2.6  author  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @21.2.5    4 months ago

The Obama administration spied on his campaign, the Russian collusion acquisition was baseless. They got caught.

Now the origins of this national embarrassment are being investigated.

 
 
 
Dulay
21.2.7  Dulay  replied to  tomwcraig @21.2    4 months ago
For Obstruction, you have to prove criminal intent (ie they are actively trying to stop an investigation because they believe the investigation will throw light on their misdeeds).

Actually, criminal intent need not be proven for an obstruction charge. 

Fail. 

We can prove negligence regarding Hillary Clinton's emails, which is a crime under the Espionage Act of 1917. 

Oh please DO proceed to prove that. I'll wait...

 
 
 
Dulay
21.2.8  Dulay  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @21.2.6    4 months ago
The Obama administration spied on his campaign,

Bullshit. 

the Russian collusion acquisition was baseless. They got caught.

There is plenty of evidence in Mueller's report of Russian collusion. 

Now the origins of this national embarrassment are being investigated.

Since so many, including Trump, have already opined on the corruption of the 'oranges' of the investigation, WTF is taking so long? 

 
 
 
Sunshine
21.2.9  Sunshine  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @21.2.5    4 months ago
He obstructed the investigation into his campaign ties with Russian operatives that DID happen no matter how much you wish they hadn't. He obstructed the investigation into Russian election meddling which DID happen, it was not a hoax.

Mueller disagrees with you.  He said his investigation was not obstructed at all.

Georgia Republican Rep. Doug Collins at the top of the hearing, which is expected to last for several more hours, asked Mueller at the very top if his exhaustive, invasive probe was in any way “curtailed or stopped or hindered” by the president or the White House.


Mueller, fulfilling Democrats’ great hope that he would bring his 400-page report “to life,” said simply, “no.”

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/robert-mueller-ended-the-obstruction-question-in-the-first-30-minutes-of-the-hearing
 
 
 
MrFrost
21.2.10  MrFrost  replied to  tomwcraig @21.2    4 months ago
We can prove negligence regarding Hillary Clinton's emails, which is a crime under the Espionage Act of 1917. 

You may want to let the DOJ know that Ivanka, Jared and Jr. all use private email servers as well. 

 
 
 
Dulay
21.2.11  Dulay  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @21.2.5    4 months ago
The Mueller report shows that they were unable to find evidence of collusion

Actually, Mueller documented plenty of evidence of collusion, he could not prove conspiracy, which requires knowledge of the law, which we know Trump lacks. 

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
21.2.12  author  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh  replied to  Dulay @21.2.8    4 months ago

There is zero evidence in the report. Ya got nothing. A team of Hillary supporters couldn't find it.

They did however indict a troll farm, turned out to be a legit business and the Judge excoriated Mueller for having zero evidence.

384 1 x.jpg" >

It's a national embarrassment and sad to see people holding on to the hope this hoax is real.

 
 
 
Dulay
21.2.13  Dulay  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @21.2.12    4 months ago
There is zero evidence in the report.

Well that tells me that you either didn't actually read the report, that you are incapable of understanding what it says or that your comment is just a lie. 

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
21.2.14  author  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh  replied to  Dulay @21.2.13    4 months ago

Total projection!

Understood!

 
 
 
Dulay
21.2.15  Dulay  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @21.2.14    4 months ago
Total projection! Understood!

Total deflection!

Typical!

 
 
 
KDMichigan
21.2.16  KDMichigan  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @21.2.12    4 months ago
There is zero evidence in the report.

The collusion delusion is strong in some. They put all their hopes and dreams in the Russian collusion hoax, they just can't accept the facts. 

256

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
21.2.17  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @21.2.12    4 months ago

Your empty buns and empty comment reminded me of the "Trump Sandwich"...

"Store owners in the United States (and occasionally in Canada and the United Kingdom) advertised the sandwich as “white bread, full of baloney, with Russian dressing, and a small pickle.”

https://www.atlasobscura.com/foods/trump-sandwich

 
 
 
JohnRussell
21.2.18  JohnRussell  replied to  KDMichigan @21.2.16    4 months ago

Here are just three facts. 

Trump asked an adversary nation to spy on his political opponent during the election campaign. 

Trump personally directed a coverup of the true reason for the Jun 9, 2016 Trump Tower meeting between his son and son in law and some Russians. 

Trump ordered the firing of a government prosecutor that was investigating HIM. 

Those are all FACTS. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
21.2.19  Sean Treacy  replied to  JohnRussell @21.2.18    4 months ago
Trump asked an adversary nation to spy on his political opponent during the election campaign.

No he didn't.

 personally directed a coverup of the true reason for the Jun 9, 201

He lied to the media. You caught a President lying.  Which is news now? 

Trump ordered the firing of a government prosecutor that was investigating HIM. 

He did not fire the prosecutor investigating him. 

 
 
 
KDMichigan
21.2.20  KDMichigan  replied to  JohnRussell @21.2.18    4 months ago
Those are all FACTS. 

The delusion is alive and well.

 
 
 
Dulay
21.2.21  Dulay  replied to  Sean Treacy @21.2.19    4 months ago
No he didn't.

Mueller report on July 27, 2016 event:

Trump added , "Russia , if you're listening ,I hope you 're able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing. I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press ."

Within five hours of Trump's remark, a Russian intelligence service began targeting email accounts associated with Hillary Clinton for possible hacks.

He lied to the media. You caught a President lying. Which is news now?

Yes we know that Trump gets an open ended pass from his sycophants. 

He did not fire the prosecutor investigating him.

Who has Trump ever actually personally fired? For a guy that made millions PRETENDING to fire people, it seems that Trump is too much of a pussy to do his own dirty work. Trump ordered multiple people to fire multiple people because he doesn't have the gonads to do it himself. The fact that he ordered McGahn to fire Mueller for a corrupt reason constitutes obstruction of justice. 

 
 
 
XDm9mm
21.2.22  XDm9mm  replied to  Dulay @21.2.21    4 months ago
Trump added , "Russia , if you're listening ,I hope you 're able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing. I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press ."

Within five hours of Trump's remark, a Russian intelligence service began targeting email accounts associated with Hillary Clinton for possible hacks.

He lied to the media. You caught a President lying. Which is news now?
Yes we know that Trump gets an open ended pass from his sycophants. 

And then there's this to fill in the gaps that Dulay intentionally neglected to mention.

“By the way, if they hacked, they probably have her 33,000 emails,” he said. “I hope they do. They probably have her 33,000 emails that she lost and deleted. Because you’d see some beauties there.” A few minutes later, he returned to the idea, speaking directly to the Kremlin: “I will tell you this: Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing.”

And as Paul Harvey would say:

"And now you know the rest of the story."

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
21.2.23  Sean Treacy  replied to  Dulay @21.2.21    4 months ago
ump added , "Russia , if you're listening ,I hope you 're able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing. I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press

Do you not understand english? Hillary destroyed the emails after they were subpoenaed. Trump jokingly asked russia to find them as the FBI was looking for them and they were obviously not in Clinton's possession, since they'd been wiped clean with bleach bit. If you take take Trump's joke seriously , he's asking Russia to find them from whoever may have hacked them and give them to the FBI. 

Yes we know that Trump gets an open ended pas

Presidents lie to the press. Thanks for confirming that's not a crime. 

e fact that he ordered McGahn to fire Mueller for a corrupt reason constitutes obstruction of justice. 

Was Mueller fired? Whoops!

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
21.2.24  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Sunshine @21.2.9    4 months ago
Mueller disagrees with you.  He said his investigation was not obstructed at all.

"the investigation established that several individuals affiliated with the Trump Campaign lied to the Office, and to Congress, about their interactions with Russian-affiliated individuals and related matters. Those lies materially impaired the investigation of Russian election interference ." pg 17

"[ S]ome of the individuals we interviewed or whose conduct we investigated — including some associated with the Trump campaign deleted relevant communications or communicated during the relevant period using applications that feature encryption or do not provide for long term retention of data or communication records . In such cases, the Office was not able to corroborate witness statements through comparison to contemporaneous communications or fully question witnesses about statements that appeared inconsistent with known facts." pg 18

https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf

 
 
 
XDm9mm
21.2.25  XDm9mm  replied to  Dulay @21.2.21    4 months ago
The fact that he ordered McGahn to fire Mueller for a corrupt reason constitutes obstruction of justice. 

Was Mueller fired?   NO.

But I must surmise you never said anything wrong when you were unjustly being targeted and were pissed.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
21.2.26  XDm9mm  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @21.2.24    4 months ago
several individuals affiliated with

It's funny, but I don't see the name Trump there.  So now President Trump is personally responsible for the actions of others?

Did your significant other ever get a ticket?  Did you get the points on your license and pay the fine?

 
 
 
Sunshine
21.2.27  Sunshine  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @21.2.24    4 months ago

You will need to take it up with Mueller.  Under oath he said there was no obstruction.

Maybe he can explain to you the difference between impaired investigation and obstruction of justice.

Exactly where does it say Trump deleted relevant communication, data, or lied to Mueller and his goon squad?

 
 
 
Dulay
21.2.28  Dulay  replied to  XDm9mm @21.2.22    4 months ago
And then there's this to fill in the gaps that Dulay intentionally neglected to mention.

First of all, as I stated, my quotes are from the Mueller report. 

Secondly, do you actually think that your quote is somehow exculpatory? 

Thirdly, you should post the source of your quote since it is NOT from the Mueller report. 

 
 
 
Sunshine
21.2.29  Sunshine  replied to  Dulay @21.2.21    4 months ago
The fact that he ordered McGahn to fire Mueller for a corrupt reason constitutes obstruction of justice. 

Please explain how the firing of Mueller would rise to the crime of obstruction of justice?

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
21.2.30  author  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh  replied to  JohnRussell @21.2.18    4 months ago

Those aren't facts those are birthday wishes.

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
21.2.31  author  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh  replied to  Dulay @21.2.21    4 months ago

Who was fired?

 
 
 
Dulay
21.2.32  Dulay  replied to  Sean Treacy @21.2.23    4 months ago
Do you not understand english?

I understand English just fine thank you. 

Hillary destroyed the emails after they were subpoenaed.

There is NO evidence that the emails deleted from Clinton's server were covered by the subpoena. 

Trump jokingly asked russia to find them as the FBI was looking for them and they were obviously not in Clinton's possession, since they'd been wiped clean with bleach bit. If you take take Trump's joke seriously , he's asking Russia to find them from whoever may have hacked them and give them to the FBI. 

Actually, it has NOTHING to do with what I take seriously. The FACT is, Russia took him seriously and ACTED on it. 

Russia hacked the DNC emails and other documents, that is a FACT, why equivocate? 

Oh and BTFW, Trump said that the media would reward Russia. Trump didn't say ANYTHING about giving them to the FBI. Try posting some facts. 

 
 
 
Dulay
21.2.33  Dulay  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @21.2.31    4 months ago

Here is a partial list. It's hard to keep up. 

https://heavy.com/news/2017/05/who-trump-has-fired-so-far-list-firings-preet-bharara-james-comey-watergate/

I think the closest Trump came to actually personally telling anyone they were fired was the tweet that fired Tillerson. Classy guy. 

 
 
 
Dulay
21.2.34  Dulay  replied to  Sunshine @21.2.29    4 months ago
Please explain how the firing of Mueller would rise to the crime of obstruction of justice?

I defer to the Mueller report to explain that to you. Go READ it for yourself. It's explained thoroughly in Volume II. 

 
 
 
Sunshine
21.2.35  Sunshine  replied to  Dulay @21.2.34    4 months ago
I defer to the Mueller report to explain that to you.

I didn't think you could because it isn't in Mueller's report.

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
21.2.36  Freedom Warrior  replied to  Sunshine @21.2.29    4 months ago

 Particularly now that we know that Mueller was merely a clueless  figurehead that had no real knowledge of the investigation or anything going on surrounding it. 

 
 
 
Dulay
21.2.37  Dulay  replied to  Sunshine @21.2.35    4 months ago
I didn't think you could because it isn't in Mueller's report.

Oh but it is in the Mueller report. It's pure laziness not to go read it for yourself. 

It starts on Page 4 of the Executive Summary of Volume II:

On June 17, 2017, the President called McGahn at home and directed him to call the Acting Attorney General and say that the Special Counsel had conflicts of interest and must be removed. McGahn did not carry out the direction , however, deciding that he would resign rather than trigger what he regarded as a potential Saturday Night Massacre.

Under The President's Efforts to Remove the Special Counsel, letter E of Volume II page 77 is the evidence you pretend to seek. 

Here is a searchable copy of the Mueller report. 

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5955210-Redacted-Mueller-Report.html

I'm done holding your hand...

 
 
 
Sunshine
21.2.39  Sunshine  replied to  Dulay @21.2.37    4 months ago

Firing of Mueller does not obstruct justice.  All it does is fire Mueller.  

It is very simple, even Mueller himself, under sworn testimony, said there was no obstruction.

You can repeat the same nonsense over and over, but it doesn't change the law.

 
 
 
Tessylo
21.2.40  Tessylo  replied to  Sunshine @21.2.39    4 months ago

Fire Mueller?

Didn't you hear, he's retired.  

 
 
 
Tessylo
21.2.41  Tessylo  replied to  Sunshine @21.2.39    4 months ago
;It is very simple, even Mueller himself, under sworn testimony, said there was no obstruction. You can repeat the same nonsense over and over, but it doesn't change the law.'

You can repeat the same lie over and over again, but that doesn't change the truth.  

tenor.gif?itemid=9422339

 
 
 
Dulay
21.2.42  Dulay  replied to  Sean Treacy @21.2.23    4 months ago
Was Mueller fired? Whoops!

No Mueller wasn't fired. 

Endeavoring to fire him with corrupt intent is obstruction of justice. 

Ordering the WH counsel to write a fabricated memo to file is obstruction of justice. 

Whoops!

 
 
 
Dulay
21.2.43  Dulay  replied to  Sunshine @21.2.39    4 months ago
Firing of Mueller does not obstruct justice. All it does is fire Mueller.

It is very simple, even Mueller himself, under sworn testimony, said there was no obstruction.

You can repeat the same nonsense over and over, but it doesn't change the law.

You are either willfully ignorant of the underlying law or incapable of understanding what it means. Either educate yourself or refrain from pontificating on the law underpinning this issue. Your unfounded proclamations are embarrassing to read. 

 
 
 
Sunshine
21.2.44  Sunshine  replied to  Dulay @21.2.43    4 months ago
You are either willfully ignorant of the underlying law

What is the underlying law? 

Please let Mueller know, again, he testified under oath there was no obstruction.  So you better let him know. 

 
 
 
pat wilson
21.2.45  pat wilson  replied to  Sunshine @21.2.44    4 months ago

he testified under oath there was no obstruction

That's simply not true:

Despite Mr. Mueller’s unwillingness to speculate on hypotheticals, and his adherence to the Justice Department policy against indicting a sitting president, these facts, which he also outlined in depth in his report, make clear that were Mr. Trump an ordinary person, he would have been indicted on multiple counts of obstruction of justice, as more than a thousand former federal prosecutors, free of those limitations, have observed .

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/24/opinion/robert-mueller-trump-obstruction.html

 
 
 
Dulay
21.2.46  Dulay  replied to  Sunshine @21.2.44    4 months ago
What is the underlying law? 

So you admit that you don't even know what the underlying law is but your damn sure that I don't know what I'm talking about. Hilariously obtuse. 

Again, READ Mueller's report. I gave you a link. 

Here, I'll spoon feed you ONE MORE TIME. Volume II page 9: 

I.BACKGROUND LEGAL AND EVIDENTIARY PRINCIPLES A. Legal Framework of Obstruction of Justice

READ IT. 

Please let Mueller know, again, he testified under oath there was no obstruction.  So you better let him know.  

Actually, what Mueller testified to is that the investigation was not obstructed, but it wasn't for a lack of TRYING. Mueller also testified to the fact that Trump 'TRIED' to obstruct the investigation AND documents HOW and WHEN Trump tried to obstruct the investigation in his report. Mueller cited multiple witnesses for his findings and cites all relevant statutes. To KNOW all of those facts, you'd have to have the intellectual curiosity to actually READ the report. 

 
 
 
Sunshine
21.2.47  Sunshine  replied to  pat wilson @21.2.45    4 months ago
Georgia Republican Rep. Doug Collins at the top of the hearing, which is expected to last for several more hours, asked Mueller at the very top if his exhaustive, invasive probe was in any way “curtailed or stopped or hindered” by the president or the White House.
Mueller, fulfilling Democrats’ great hope that he would bring his 400-page report “to life,” said simply, “no.”
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/robert-mueller-ended-the-obstruction-question-in-the-first-30-minutes-of-the-hearing
 
 
 
Sunshine
21.2.48  Sunshine  replied to  Dulay @21.2.46    4 months ago

All nonsense...when will we see the Articles of Impeachment?

 
 
 
Dulay
21.2.49  Dulay  replied to  Sunshine @21.2.48    4 months ago
All nonsense...when will we see the Articles of Impeachment?

They've already been filed but since you have an aversion to READING you'll never know what's in them...

 
 
 
Dulay
21.2.51  Dulay  replied to    4 months ago

They don't care Karri. The 'party line' is whatever the hell Fox is telling them. They're either too lazy to read the report or are desperate to pretend that it doesn't say what it clearly says. 

They don't have a cogent or intellectual argument. Their whole trip is to ignore the facts and to obfuscate them. 

The report has become for them something to ignore lest they be forced to recognize the actual events. Though IMHO, they wouldn't care about that either. There is nothing that Trump can do that would be worthy of criticizing Trump. Trump is sacrosanct in their eyes.

 
 
 
Sunshine
21.2.52  Sunshine  replied to    4 months ago
Umm, have you read

Have you?  Clearly not. 

 
 
 
XDm9mm
21.2.53  XDm9mm  replied to  Dulay @21.2.49    4 months ago
They've already been filed but since you have an aversion to READING you'll never know what's in them...

Maybe you should tell the House of Representatives that.  It appears that the House Judiciary Committee never got that bit of news.

House Judiciary Committee is considering articles of impeachment against Trump, court filing says

Source: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/house-judiciary-committee-is-considering-articles-of-impeachment-against-trump-court-filing-says/
 
 
 
XDm9mm
21.2.54  XDm9mm  replied to    4 months ago
Umm, have you read Vol. II in Mueller's report? 

Actually I have.  And there is nothing other than suppositions, conjecture, innuendo and rumors.

 
 
 
Dulay
21.2.55  Dulay  replied to  XDm9mm @21.2.54    4 months ago

That is utter bullshit. Volume II cites 302 testimony for over 100 pages. Why lie? 

 
 
 
Dulay
21.2.56  Dulay  replied to  XDm9mm @21.2.53    4 months ago
Maybe you should tell the House of Representatives that.  It appears that the House Judiciary Committee never got that bit of news.

Maybe YOU should recognize that the whole House is different than the Judiciary Committee. Sheesh. 

The WHOLE House voted on Articles of Impeachment on July 17, 2019. DO try to keep up. 

 
 
 
XDm9mm
21.2.57  XDm9mm  replied to  Dulay @21.2.55    4 months ago
That is utter bullshit. Volume II cites 302 testimony for over 100 pages. Why lie? 

Tell you what Dulay, you provide the Articles of Impeachment YOU claim were filed, and then we can discuss the stuff you claim is bullshit.

I won't hold my breath.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
21.2.58  XDm9mm  replied to  Dulay @21.2.56    4 months ago
The WHOLE House voted on Articles of Impeachment on July 17, 2019. DO try to keep up

And FAILED....   Now try to keep current with ACTIVE VIABLE ARTICLES of IMPEACHMENT...  NOT FAILED TOILET PAPER.

 
 
 
Dulay
21.2.59  Dulay  replied to  XDm9mm @21.2.57    4 months ago
Tell you what Dulay, you provide the Articles of Impeachment YOU claim were filed, and then we can discuss the stuff you claim is bullshit. I won't hold my breath.

Which year do you want XD? 2017, 2018 or 2019?

https://www.cnn.com/2017/11/15/politics/cohen-articles-of-impeachment/index.html

https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-resolution/498/text?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22Rep++green+impeachment%22%5D%7D&r=2&s=2

 
 
 
Dulay
21.2.60  Dulay  replied to  XDm9mm @21.2.58    4 months ago
And FAILED....   Now try to keep current with ACTIVE VIABLE ARTICLES of IMPEACHMENT...  NOT FAILED TOILET PAPER

Observe XD moving the goal posts.

Suddenly it's about 'viable' articles.

BTFW, just because a piece of legislation has been voted on, it doesn't mean that it is no longer viable. 

 
 
 
Dulay
21.2.61  Dulay  replied to  XDm9mm @21.2.54    4 months ago
And there is nothing other than suppositions, conjecture, innuendo and rumors.

If that were true, Trump should be more than willing to have McGahn testify in an open hearing. Trump insists that McGahn lied to the FBI, so why wouldn't he want GOP Congressmen to 'cross examine' him and show what a liar he is? 

Suppositions, conjecture, innuendo and rumors aren't protected by Executive privilege. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
23  Sean Treacy    4 months ago

Even reliable Democratic shill and Con law professor Lawrence Tribe knows the game is over:

"Much as I hate to say it, this morning’s hearing was a disaster. Far from breathing life into his damning report, the tired Robert Mueller sucked the life out of it."

This is the new gold standard for witness incompetence. (I hope, for his sake, he's not suffering from dementia)

 
 
 
Jasper2529
23.1  Jasper2529  replied to  Sean Treacy @23    4 months ago
(I hope, for his sake, he's not suffering from dementia)

Mueller turned 74 a couple of weeks ago, but he certainly seemed to be cognitively, aurally, and orally impaired today.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
23.1.1  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Jasper2529 @23.1    4 months ago
he certainly seemed to be cognitively, aurally, and orally impaired today

I rarely agree with you, but in this case you're spot on. It was almost like he'd suffered a stroke or something since his last press conference a few weeks ago.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
23.1.2  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @23.1.1    4 months ago

I have to say, I made the above comment after having watched the first 3rd of the hearings. After the last two thirds, Mueller did better but was still incoherent at times. He did make some clear and concise statements later that were on point, but overall I'd call it a mixed bag.

 
 
 
Dulay
23.2  Dulay  replied to  Sean Treacy @23    4 months ago
"Much as I hate to say it, this morning’s hearing was a disaster. Far from breathing life into his damning report, the tired Robert Mueller sucked the life out of it."

9:30 AM 

Lawrence Tribe 11:24 AM the same day: 

"The Intelligence Committee hearings are altogether different. If the morning put people to sleep, the afternoon should be a loud wakeup call: Russia illegally helped Trump win, with his active encouragement and criminal cover-up. Real treachery. Not a witch-hunt. Not a hoax."

As another member stated today, as Paul Harvey would say:
"And now you know the rest of the story."

 
 
 
JBB
24  JBB    4 months ago

The damn gop is making fools of themselves today. They all seemed...deplorable!

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
25  Sean Treacy    4 months ago

It's interesting to see how much kool-aid people are drinking.  Even as the usually reliable Democratic Media  outlets and pundits are facing up to the reality that Mueller bombed (for the Democrats), a few sad die hards still desperately try to spin this as good for Democrats.   

Reminds me of the Kavanuagh testimony.  In the middle of the testimony that saved his confirmation (the betting markets gave him little chance before he spoke) these same people were claiming Kavanuagh was destroying his chances of being confirmed. The more obvious it became that Kavanaugh was succeeding, the more shrill became the claims he was failing. It's like they become so wrapped up in their partisan narrative they can't see what is happening right in front of their eyes. They stop being able to process reality and retreat into their dream world.  

 
 
 
JohnRussell
25.1  JohnRussell  replied to  Sean Treacy @25    4 months ago

Mueller is not a visually impressive witness.  In this case a transcript will be more valuable than the video. 

The Republicans have not refuted a single thing in the report that is damaging to Trump. 

The disappointment is in Mueller's lackluster presentation, which is not something the Democrats could have anticipated. 

The Democrats questions have been very good, but the witness did not perform well. 

Trump is the farthest thing from exonerated. 

 
 
 
Sparty On
25.1.1  Sparty On  replied to  JohnRussell @25.1    4 months ago

Perhaps they could have gotten DeNiro to play Mueller.   He already has on SNL

Would have turned out much better for them i bet.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
25.1.2  Sean Treacy  replied to  JohnRussell @25.1    4 months ago
n this case a transcript will be more valuable than the video

We already have the report, the contents of which Mueller doesn't seem to know.  The whole point of today from the Democrat's POV was to create the visual to go along with the report.

rump is the farthest thing from exonerated

Today did give us the Mueller standard if nothing else, "Guilty until proven exonerated." 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
25.1.3  JohnRussell  replied to  Sean Treacy @25.1.2    4 months ago

The idea that the Democrats failed today is ludicrous. Their questions were totally on point, and Mueller agreed with practically everything they said. The only problem was Mueller's halting presentation. 

This was more than enough to cause the Congress to proced with impeachment. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
25.1.4  Sean Treacy  replied to  JohnRussell @25.1.3    4 months ago

This was more than enough to cause the Congress to proced with impeachment. 

It's less then they had yesterday. 

You can cling to whatever hopes you want, but today, was a huge win for Trump.  Nothing new from Mueller (that hurt Trump, plenty that helped him ) and he was revealed to be in over his head, to put it mildly.  You think the opinion of a man who doesn't even know what Fusion GPS is is worth the paper it was written on? 

 
 
 
Texan1211
25.1.5  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @25.1.3    4 months ago

Democrats did NOT gain a single thing that wasn't already in the Great Mueller Report, and they JUST shot down a chance at impeachment, so what STUNNING GREAT DISCOVERY was made today that will change the Democratic minds who voted no already?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
25.1.6  JohnRussell  replied to