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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.”
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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)."
"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.
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.
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".
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".
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
: " 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, 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.
" 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.”
Possible explanation for the contradiction: Mueller had already said we never reached a determination. The OLC statement probably was added by Weissmann!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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...
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
"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.
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.
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?
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.
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."
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.
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.
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.”
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.
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.
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.”
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
;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.
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.
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 .
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 PRINCIPLESA. 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.
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.”
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.
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.
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.
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)
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.
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.
"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."
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.
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."
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.
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?
It wasn't just the visuals John. He was brutal on the substance of his own report. He either didn't know or refused to discuss the contents of the report he supposedly authored.
There was not a single word in either hearing that disputed the Democrats point of view. Not a single Republican in either session disputed any of the facts as laid out by the Democrats.
Mueller was mostly not a good witness but the fact patterns are damning to Trump. They should impeach him.
John, I don't think that you understand what would happen in that case.
Step 1: Democrats in House use their majority to pass bill of impeachment.
Step 2: Republicans in the Senate totally ignore House action. Someone in Senate calls the question and the bill of impeachment is rejected without even bothering with a hearing.
Step 3: Republicans call attempted impeachment an attempted coup de etat undertaken because of unhinged reaction to the election of 2016......voters believe them (because it's true).
Step 4: Trump re-elected, House returns to Republican control and the squad goes back to bartending.
I almost fell out of my chair when Mueller said that he didn't know what Fusion GPS is!
Jasper, what was he supposed to do, admit that he tried to give Comey a pass on committing perjury? He was ignoring the Steele Dossier just as hard as he could. His mind isn't failing, he was just dodging.
Either might be true, and many people have speculated about his performance. Since every second of the allotted 5 minutes was valuable, perhaps he deliberately stalled, mumbled, and dodged to run out the clock. Or, as I previously said, perhaps he's cognitively and aurally impaired. None of us know for sure.
When he said he didn't know what/who Fusion GPS was? A seminal moment in the hearing.
Another was when John Ratcliffe (R-TX) forced him to admit that exoneration isn't within the "purview" of a prosecutor, thereby further exposing the Mueller Report and whoever wrote it for the shams that they are.
A prosecutor either finds enough evidence to charge/indict someone of a crime. If s/he can't, the case is closed. Period.
Mueller in his sworn testimony before Congress just made the very timely and pertinent point that Russian State Intelligence Services operatives (Putin's Troll Army) are already spreading gross misinformation while frantically trying to tilt the 2020 American election in Donald Trump's favor on American social media. I thought to myself, "Yeah, No Fucking Kidding"...
I've been watching this Democrat clown show all day. This afternoon, in one of the few questions that Mueller actually answered, all he said was that he agreed with Nunes that Russians would again be meddling. He didn't say that Russians were "frantically" trying to do anything.
He couldn't even say if he wrote the letter to Barr.
I always thought that was Weissmann and co. The leaking of the letter was the big tip off as was Barr's reaction. Remember - Barr called Mueller and asked "What's with the letter, you know you can call me whenever you want?" Somebody wanted a written record and wanted it leaked to the media.
“So may the outward shows be least themselves: The world is still deceived with ornament. In law, what plea so tainted and corrupt, But, being seasoned with a gracious voice, Obscures the show of evil? In religion, What damned error, but some sober brow Will bless it and approve it with a text, Hiding the grossness with fair ornament? There is no vice so simple but assumes Some mark of virtue on his outward parts.” ― William Shakespeare, The Merchant of Venice
If Democrats believed that Robert Mueller would provide them with additional ammunition for an impeachment inquiry, they made an extraordinary miscalculation. Not only was Mueller often flustered and unprepared to talk about his own report—we now have wonder to what extent he was even involved in the day-to-day work of the investigation—but he was needlessly evasive. In the end, he seriously undermined the central case for impeachment of President Donald Trump
Moreover, as Collins pointed out, Mueller’s own report stated that “collusion” and criminal conspiracy were basically “synonymous.”
“[C]ollusion is largely synonymous with conspiracy as that crime is set forth in the general federal conspiracy statute,” Mueller’s report states on page 180 of the second volume.
When asked to explain this contradiction, Mueller stammered on for a few minutes before saying he would “leave it with the report.” Collins pointed out that, yes, the report stated that the terms “collusion” and “conspiracy” were synonymous, Mueller was forced to admit, “Yes.”
In the end, even Russian election interference, the ostensible purpose of the entire project, was outside Mueller’s expertise. When Rep. Greg Steube asked him if there was any evidence that a single American had changed their vote because of Russian meddling (the answer, incidentally, is no), Mueller responded that it was “beyond his purview.”
Democrats, in turn, spent their time trying to force Mueller to dramatize the op-ed section of his report on obstruction of justice. Their case basically boiled down to the charge of attempted obstruction, since Mueller was never fired. Mueller had stuffed the report with numerous examples of Trump, frustrated by false claims that he was seditious candidate who had stolen the presidency, giving into his own worst inclinations. All his attempts were shut down by his lawyers. When Rep. John Ratcliffe asked Mueller whether his investigation been curtailed, stopped, or hindered at any time, Mueller answered, “No.”
“If you were a casual viewer and were asked, ‘What did the president do wrong here?’ it wouldn’t be easy to answer that question,” CNN’s Jeffery Toobin conceded at one point during the testimony.”
“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.”
Trump, B 4 N after states Mueller exonerated him WTF N WHERE THE FCK DO U PATHETIC Defenders of Trump come up with the pseudo reality that you've taken, B cause the one U consistently defend, HAS TAKEN U ALL
Mueller stated HE DID NOT EXONERATE TRump
and
Trump CAN BE CHARGED after his Term is up.
.
These TWO POINTS, are ALL that truly matter.
DEFEND THEM , suckerz
or just go silent.
AS THEY ARE INDEFENSIBLE, but you're pathetic attempts, do amuse peoples living in the real world.
Seems like it was - as predicted by many - a big waste of time.
It seems like Democrats keep wanting some third party to make it ok for them to impeach Trump. They lack the stones to do it themselves, in the open, taking responsibility for all time - and with good reason. As much as there is to be critical of Trump over, his behavior doesn't rise to the level envisioned for that action. They all know this or they would have proceeded on their own a long time ago. It doesn't help their credibility that so many were talking about impeaching him even before elected or sworn in.
I see the conservative fantasy sites are the case.
EVERY investigator has a STAFF who help with investigations, and this one was a bit more difficult and complex then looking up a number and address in the phone book.
Weren't the conservatives already bitchin' about how long it was taking, imagine how long it would have taken if he'd have done the entire investigation by himself.
Mueller said quite a while ago he wasn't going to add anything to what was written in his report, and that's what he did. I guess he figures he's a INVESTAGATOR and he did his job, he investigated. He made his report and handed it off to Congress to prosecute like they should.
All he did, with members of both parties trying to get him to make a statement that one side or the other could use, was reinforce what he said in his report. Apparently he doesn't want to bring charges against a sitting president (being old fashioned that way) and doesn't want to get dragged into this political....swamp, although nuclear waste cesspool would be a better description.
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.
What new evidence produced today does that?
Let's have Don McGhan testify before Congress and see what happens.
Yes he did .... via an endless supply of unmitigated gall .......
Sorry Perry Mason Jr, that is not correct.
Perry Mason?
He seem more like a Matlock type to me.
Who are you? Denny Crane?
Oh ya, then we can prove that the President was thinking of firing Mueller! How dare he!
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.
False. There need be NO underlying crime for a charge of 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.
Or of one that did not exist in the first place.
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.
Of course, there are many reasons Trump should be impeached. He is a constant embarrassment to this country.
Sorry, that doesn't qualify him for impeachment.
Volume 2 was designed for a democratic House to do just that. Weissmann at work.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
No, I’m ecstatic watching the Dem meltdown. These enemies of liberty need to be crushed so that they never can rise to power
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
Of course you are pastor.
Any time the deceit and treachery of Marxist statist Democrats falls to naught is a good day for America and Americans
That is exactly what all this song and dance has been about.
Marxist, statist, communist, socialist blah blah fucking blah.
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.
He's showing that he found nothing after 22 months of witch hunting.
You mean despite Bobbie Mueller acknowledging several times that it didn't happen?
Your comments display ignorance at a staggering level.
[Deleted]
Ignorance at a staggering level is thinking the President obstructed despite Mueller admitting that he didn't on national TV.
MUELLER NEVER SAID THAT.
MUELLER NEVER SAID THAT.
First the all caps just reinforces the fact you are mid temper tantrum.
Second:
Unhindered and unobstructed. Mueller answered there was nothing hindering or obstructing his investigation.
Barr wasn't on national TV answering the question "were you able to conduct your investigation unhindered and unobstructed?"
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.
What do you know about law?
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.
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.
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.
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.
So you're an expert on law because you took a couple of courses.
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.
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.
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'
But I thought the AG was supposed to be the Presidents wingman.
Isn't that his job?
I have. Here's a part of Article I that you seem to have missed:
In short, the Congress makes all laws and the Heads of the Agencies make regulations to enact those laws.
Looky there tom, you just admitted to the FACT that neither Trump nor WH Counsel McGahn had the authority to fire Special Counsel Mueller.
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?
Obstruction of justice is all about hiding a underlying crime.
Trump has a plethora of them to hide.
Holder's words not mine.
Unfortunately neither Mueller and his team of Hillary and Obama sycophants, nor the Dems seem to be able to find them.
Chris Wallace: "This has been a disaster for Democrats and for the reputation of Robert Mueller."
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.
What warrants? What investigations?
Says Chris Wallace from the turds' propaganda network
Haven't listened to a second of it. Any updates? Anything exciting? Or, has it been Price is Right, loser trombone bump?
In his calm manner Mueller eviscerated Trump. The gop looks like corrupt fools...
Now there's an interesting spin .... albeit a shithouse rat crazy one ......
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.
Like Transyferous Rex, I didn't watch the testimony. However, I was expecting it to be like you described, Jeremy Retired in NC.
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.
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.
What investigation was illegal?
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.
There was no illegality regarding the FISA warrants.
Carter Page should be so happy that you're supporting him.
Sorry, I will wait for the investigations to conclude- rather than take your word.
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?
Nune's House investigation already concluded that there was no FISA illegality.
Don't reign over their conspiracy parade.
That is reserved for the Grand Wizard , also known as
Trump
Try again, and again, and again.
If you are talking about the Nunes memo you are spinning harder than the Dems in the House.
It is not like FBI doesn't have a history of FISA abuses either.
You can google the very real investigations going on about the FISA abuses that started this whole boondoggle.
Nope
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.
There is little doubt that you have no intention of actually posting any acknowledged facts.
Are you positing that Mueller wasn't appointed Special Counsel?
The obstruction charges are documented.
Mueller already gave his report.
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)."
"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.
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.
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.
Yes, and he'll get pulled out of the GOP's incompetent ass by force in 2020. Enjoy him while you can.
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".
I 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"
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.
Thanks for the correction. My bad.
How arrogant of some to refer to Mr. Mueller as Bobbie though.
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?
And he is only 1 year older than Trump. But at least Mueller can find the car he is riding in.
You're 'misremembering' the testimony. The obstruction statute clearly 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.
Where do you find your memes? DeplorablesRUs?
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.
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.
That was aptly, concisely and fairly stated...
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.
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.
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.
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.
Robert Mueller Says Donald Trump Could Be Charged When He Leaves Office
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
“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.
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.
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.
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.
Don't you mean Herr Mueller? I get it.
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.
So you didn't mind all the taxpayer money spent on the endless investigations against Hillary where they found NOTHING?
Got it.
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.
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.
Then WHY is Trump using DOJ lawyers to defend him in court?
Did they prove bias?
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.
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?
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.
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.
They already tried to impeach him after the report and didn't have the votes
Good luck trying again after today.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
You know polls don't me squat..just ask Hil.
Maybe the Dems have learned something!
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?
Do you even know who Hil is?
Hillary was polling ahead of Trump up until the election, do you understand now?
Why don't you provide a list of them then?
So, you are saying that Hillary is running again in 2020, and Trump is favored over her? Please provide links to this claim.
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.
And you wonder why people don't take you seriously ......
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.
And yet you are responding to a comment of mine......hmmmm.
Doesn’t change a thing in context uuummhummm .....
Still responding..............
Still meaningless in context .... keep it up!
So he was lying last month then?
Not a good look.
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.
Whoops!
He sure walked that back after being coached at break. Perjury risk avoided!
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.”
Possible explanation for the contradiction: Mueller had already said we never reached a determination. The OLC statement probably was added by Weissmann!
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.
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.
Are the Democrats slobbering all over Mueller? Yeppers.
They know his credibility and report is in serious jeopardy.
They know his credibility and report is in serious jeopardy.
Nope and nope
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
Well that makes no sense.
What facts are you talking about.
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?
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...
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!
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.
Proof? Looks like the repubs are getting beaten up with their, "spin, deflect and deny" strategy.
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.
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.
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.
"The person who learned the most about the Mueller Report today was Bob Mueller." Trey Gowdy
How?
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).
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.
And he did in his report. Did you forget that he outlined over 120 contacts between his staff and Russian politicians, agents, and oligarchs?
And they learned that from Barr's "summary" not from the report itself.
3?
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.
So when Mueller said he found no collusion, there was actually a lot of it. Got it. Thanks for verifying that.
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.
Weird that trump never once testified under oath. I wonder why?
Maybe the same reason Hilly didn't.
Um, she testified under oath for 11 hours.
But by all means, keep deflecting. LOL
You do know that is not an FBI or DOJ interrogation?
It was under oath, which you claimed Hillary didn't do. I was right, you were wrong. Deal with it.
I guess you don't know the difference.
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?
You do know that it doesn't matter what kind of Federal interrogation it was right?
I'm not a big fan of Schiff, but he asked all the right questions.
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.
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.
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?
With your several classes in law, you're the legal expert for sure.
The Clinton defense, but, but, her e-mails.
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.
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."
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.
Actually, criminal intent need not be proven for an obstruction charge.
Fail.
Oh please DO proceed to prove that. I'll wait...
Bullshit.
There is plenty of evidence in Mueller's report of Russian collusion.
Since so many, including Trump, have already opined on the corruption of the 'oranges' of the investigation, WTF is taking so long?
Mueller disagrees with you. He said his investigation was not obstructed at all.
You may want to let the DOJ know that Ivanka, Jared and Jr. all use private email servers as well.
Actually, Mueller documented plenty of evidence of collusion, he could not prove conspiracy, which requires knowledge of the law, which we know Trump lacks.
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.
Total deflection!
Typical!
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.
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.”
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.
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.
The delusion is alive and well.
Mueller report on July 27, 2016 event:
Yes we know that Trump gets an open ended pass from his sycophants.
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.
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!
"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
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?
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.
Please explain how the firing of Mueller would rise to the crime of obstruction of justice?
I understand English just fine thank you.
There is NO evidence that the emails deleted from Clinton's server were covered by the subpoena.
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.
Here is a partial list. It's hard to keep up.
I think the closest Trump came to actually personally telling anyone they were fired was the tweet that fired Tillerson. Classy guy.
I defer to the Mueller report to explain that to you. Go READ it for yourself. It's explained thoroughly in Volume II.
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:
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.
I'm done holding your hand...
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.
Fire Mueller?
Didn't you hear, he's retired.
You can repeat the same lie over and over again, but that doesn't change the truth.
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!
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.
What is the underlying law?
Please let Mueller know, again, he testified under oath there was no obstruction. So you better let him know.
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 .
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:
READ IT.
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.
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...
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.
Have you? Clearly not.
That is utter bullshit. Volume II cites 302 testimony for over 100 pages. Why lie?
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.
Which year do you want XD? 2017, 2018 or 2019?
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.
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.
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)
Mueller turned 74 a couple of weeks ago, but 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.
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.
9:30 AM
Lawrence Tribe 11:24 AM the same day:
As another member stated today, as Paul Harvey would say:
"And now you know the rest of the story."
The damn gop is making fools of themselves today. They all seemed...deplorable!
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.
.
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.
Perhaps they could have gotten DeNiro to play Mueller. He already has on SNL
Would have turned out much better for them i bet.
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.
Today did give us the Mueller standard if nothing else, "Guilty until proven exonerated."
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.
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?
They should impeach Trump. The facts justify it. Mueller was not a real good witness but the facts overpower the lack of visuals.
That tweet was made 3 or 4 hours ago.
It wasn't just the visuals John. He was brutal on the substance of his own report. He either didn't know or refused to discuss the contents of the report he supposedly authored.
There was not a single word in either hearing that disputed the Democrats point of view. Not a single Republican in either session disputed any of the facts as laid out by the Democrats.
Mueller was mostly not a good witness but the fact patterns are damning to Trump. They should impeach him.
I almost fell out of my chair when Mueller said that he didn't know what Fusion GPS is!
How could he NOT know what it is when it is intertwined with Steele and the Steele Dossier, which are BOTH in the Report?
Did Mueller LIE under oath today, or did he merely "forget" or "misspeak"?
It's 6PM Eastern time. Pelosi, Nadler, Schiff, and Cummings are STILL saying that Mueller proved that Trump is guilty of collusion and obstruction!
John, I don't think that you understand what would happen in that case.
Step 1: Democrats in House use their majority to pass bill of impeachment.
Step 2: Republicans in the Senate totally ignore House action. Someone in Senate calls the question and the bill of impeachment is rejected without even bothering with a hearing.
Step 3: Republicans call attempted impeachment an attempted coup de etat undertaken because of unhinged reaction to the election of 2016......voters believe them (because it's true).
Step 4: Trump re-elected, House returns to Republican control and the squad goes back to bartending.
Jasper, what was he supposed to do, admit that he tried to give Comey a pass on committing perjury? He was ignoring the Steele Dossier just as hard as he could. His mind isn't failing, he was just dodging.
Either might be true, and many people have speculated about his performance. Since every second of the allotted 5 minutes was valuable, perhaps he deliberately stalled, mumbled, and dodged to run out the clock. Or, as I previously said, perhaps he's cognitively and aurally impaired. None of us know for sure.
When he said he didn't know what/who Fusion GPS was? A seminal moment in the hearing.
Unbelievable on so many levels. Lets see them try to spin that one.
Another was when John Ratcliffe (R-TX) forced him to admit that exoneration isn't within the "purview" of a prosecutor, thereby further exposing the Mueller Report and whoever wrote it for the shams that they are.
A prosecutor either finds enough evidence to charge/indict someone of a crime. If s/he can't, the case is closed. Period.
There were many other seminal moments.
Most of which will be ignored or spun like a Whirling Dervish by some folks here on NT.
I can almost see the smoke pouring out of their ears right now .....
Since Fusion GPS wasn't mentioned in the Mueller report, why do you think that Mueller should know what they are?
Mueller in his sworn testimony before Congress just made the very timely and pertinent point that Russian State Intelligence Services operatives (Putin's Troll Army) are already spreading gross misinformation while frantically trying to tilt the 2020 American election in Donald Trump's favor on American social media. I thought to myself, "Yeah, No Fucking Kidding"...
I've been watching this Democrat clown show all day. This afternoon, in one of the few questions that Mueller actually answered, all he said was that he agreed with Nunes that Russians would again be meddling. He didn't say that Russians were "frantically" trying to do anything.
The two guys sitting behind Robert Mueller look familiar.
Laura Ingraham just weighed in. She wants someone to ask Mueller if he even wrote one paragraph of the Mueller Report?
It's a good question, because he certainly hasn't indicated that he knows much about the "report" that bears his name.
I think it's all too obvious now. He was appointed and then delegated everything away to 14 anti Trump lawyers!
Thank God Trump didn't appoint him to the job he wanted.
He couldn't even say if he wrote the letter to Barr.
I always thought that was Weissmann and co. The leaking of the letter was the big tip off as was Barr's reaction. Remember - Barr called Mueller and asked "What's with the letter, you know you can call me whenever you want?" Somebody wanted a written record and wanted it leaked to the media.
Pencilneck is quite the drama queen.
“So may the outward shows be least themselves: The world is still deceived with ornament. In law, what plea so tainted and corrupt, But, being seasoned with a gracious voice, Obscures the show of evil? In religion, What damned error, but some sober brow Will bless it and approve it with a text, Hiding the grossness with fair ornament? There is no vice so simple but assumes Some mark of virtue on his outward parts.” ― William Shakespeare, The Merchant of Venice
Oh please...you call people racist more than Al Sharpton.
OMFG, PLEASE explain how that quote has anything to do with calling people racist.
It's been a bad day for democrats and Mollie Hemingway has captured the feeling for people like me:
"I'm simultaneously SO UNCOMFORTABLE but also wanting this hearing to never end. It's accomplishing so much with such efficiency."
Good Night Mollie
So, we've read the book and watched the movie. Both were epic failures at the box office.
What's the next drama for Schiff, Nadler, and Associates?
Last night was probably not a pleasant night to be a dog at the Schiff or Nadler households.
Lots of tantrums and kicking going on ....... poor animals! And i do mean the dogs, not Schiff and Nadler.
Don't reign over their conspiracy parade.
That is reserved for the Grand Wizard , also known as
Trump
Don't you mean Grand Dragon? Or is it Imperial Wizard?
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
Robert Mueller’s Testimony Has Been A Complete Disaster For Democrats
If Democrats believed that Robert Mueller would provide them with additional ammunition for an impeachment inquiry, they made an extraordinary miscalculation. Not only was Mueller often flustered and unprepared to talk about his own report—we now have wonder to what extent he was even involved in the day-to-day work of the investigation—but he was needlessly evasive. In the end, he seriously undermined the central case for impeachment of President Donald Trump
Moreover, as Collins pointed out, Mueller’s own report stated that “collusion” and criminal conspiracy were basically “synonymous.”
“[C]ollusion is largely synonymous with conspiracy as that crime is set forth in the general federal conspiracy statute,” Mueller’s report states on page 180 of the second volume.
When asked to explain this contradiction, Mueller stammered on for a few minutes before saying he would “leave it with the report.” Collins pointed out that, yes, the report stated that the terms “collusion” and “conspiracy” were synonymous, Mueller was forced to admit, “Yes.”
In the end, even Russian election interference, the ostensible purpose of the entire project, was outside Mueller’s expertise. When Rep. Greg Steube asked him if there was any evidence that a single American had changed their vote because of Russian meddling (the answer, incidentally, is no), Mueller responded that it was “beyond his purview.”
Democrats, in turn, spent their time trying to force Mueller to dramatize the op-ed section of his report on obstruction of justice. Their case basically boiled down to the charge of attempted obstruction, since Mueller was never fired. Mueller had stuffed the report with numerous examples of Trump, frustrated by false claims that he was seditious candidate who had stolen the presidency, giving into his own worst inclinations. All his attempts were shut down by his lawyers. When Rep. John Ratcliffe asked Mueller whether his investigation been curtailed, stopped, or hindered at any time, Mueller answered, “No.”
“If you were a casual viewer and were asked, ‘What did the president do wrong here?’ it wouldn’t be easy to answer that question,” CNN’s Jeffery Toobin conceded at one point during the testimony.”
“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.”
Mueller states HE DID NOT EXONERATE TRump
Trump, B 4 N after states Mueller exonerated him WTF N WHERE THE FCK DO U PATHETIC Defenders of Trump come up with the pseudo reality that you've taken, B cause the one U consistently defend, HAS TAKEN U ALL
Mueller stated HE DID NOT EXONERATE TRump
and
Trump CAN BE CHARGED after his Term is up.
.
These TWO POINTS, are ALL that truly matter.
DEFEND THEM , suckerz
or just go silent.
AS THEY ARE INDEFENSIBLE, but you're pathetic attempts, do amuse peoples living in the real world.
Seems like it was - as predicted by many - a big waste of time.
It seems like Democrats keep wanting some third party to make it ok for them to impeach Trump. They lack the stones to do it themselves, in the open, taking responsibility for all time - and with good reason. As much as there is to be critical of Trump over, his behavior doesn't rise to the level envisioned for that action. They all know this or they would have proceeded on their own a long time ago. It doesn't help their credibility that so many were talking about impeaching him even before elected or sworn in.
Today's
Hearing
Was
A
Complete
Waste
Of
Time
Utterly Pointless!
Bottom line, Trump was NOT EXONERATED of committing obstruction of justice, which is a crime.
That's outrageous
LOL
I see the conservative fantasy sites are the case.
EVERY investigator has a STAFF who help with investigations, and this one was a bit more difficult and complex then looking up a number and address in the phone book.
Weren't the conservatives already bitchin' about how long it was taking, imagine how long it would have taken if he'd have done the entire investigation by himself.
Mueller said quite a while ago he wasn't going to add anything to what was written in his report, and that's what he did. I guess he figures he's a INVESTAGATOR and he did his job, he investigated. He made his report and handed it off to Congress to prosecute like they should.
All he did, with members of both parties trying to get him to make a statement that one side or the other could use, was reinforce what he said in his report. Apparently he doesn't want to bring charges against a sitting president (being old fashioned that way) and doesn't want to get dragged into this political....swamp, although nuclear waste cesspool would be a better description.