How Republicans Questioned Robert Mueller Should Terrify Us All

  
Via:  ender  •  3 months ago  •  144 comments

How Republicans Questioned Robert Mueller Should Terrify Us All
In this op-ed, writer Jenna Birch examines how Republicans questioned Robert Mueller during his congressional testimony on the investigation into President Donald Trump and Russian interference in the 2016 election .

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T


During his testimony to Congress on Wednesday, special counsel Robert Mueller faced attacks from Republicans attempting to bring his character into question by criticizing his team, his interpretations of the law, his findings, and his patriotism. One Republican congressman went so far as to call Mueller’s investigation and report “ un-American .” The day-long event made the special counsel’s weeks of reluctance to testify before the House fairly unsurprising. It also highlighted the depths Republicans would go to push their agenda.

Democrats used their time with Mueller to emphasize the report’s key findings, because President Donald Trump and other officials have tried to bury the truth. Trump has insisted he was “ totally exonerated ” by the Mueller report. Mueller himself directly contradicted that characterization of his findings in his testimony.

Republicans, on the other hand, created emotional diversions meant to undermine Mueller’s decisions on the job. These attacks included allegations that   his team was a biased group   of Democrats wanting to avenge Hillary Clinton’s election loss and that he chose to only include   the most negative information   about Trump.

Some Republicans yelled, like John Ratcliffe (R-TX), who emphatically   insisted that Mueller   managed to “violate every principle and the most sacred traditions” of prosecutors by even detailing potential evidence of obstruction crimes without the ability to bring a charge. Others pulled stunts, like Rep. Michael Turner (R-OH) who brought out several thick   law books asking   Mueller why he said the report   didn’t exonerate Trump, when the special counsel doesn’t “have the power or authority to exonerate.”

The unsettling tactic has been used by Republicans before: Yell, scream, and rant about a person’s character to hide that person’s message. These politicians have an agenda of total conservative power. The way Republicans try to sow distrust threatens to undermine some of our longest-standing institutions, such as the FBI, Congress, and federally appointed officials like Mueller — institutions Americans should be able to trust.

This is not the first time we’ve seen ill-intended characterizations by the GOP. Republicans’ questioning of Mueller’s intentions is not far from the president’s insistence that “the Squad”  — first-term Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), Rashida Tlaib (D-MI), Ilhan Omar (D-MN), and Ayanna Pressley (D-MA) — should “go back” to the countries from which they came. That statement attacked the representatives to undermine them and try to place them squarely against our country’s values and feed his supporters. Portraying the Squad as antagonistic foreigners in Congress only inflames a racist falsehood that Congress does not have the best interests of Americans in mind. It causes a portion of the country to fear diversity, instead of embrace it.

It’s the same kind of distrust Republicans want the public to have in the FBI and our federal officials. When Mueller was first chosen as special counsel, he was praised for his track record, experience, and the unbiased way in which he had always performed his jobs.  Mueller is  a former Marine with a Bronze Star and a Purple Heart who served as FBI director for 12 years. He helped bring the country through the turmoil of 9/11 and served in government-appointed positions under both Democratic and Republican presidents. Despite his reputation, Republican Congress members criticized Mueller’s judgment, said he came up with “ creative ” legal analysis, and  called the whole investigation  a “spectacle” of “public theater.”

If there’s one truth Americans need to take away from Wednesday's testimony, it’s that Republican politicians’ portrayal of Mueller shows how low many in the party are willing to sink to keep the president in power and a conservative agenda in place. It also prompts a terrifying thought.

Mueller, who wrote nearly   450 pages   about his exhaustive investigation and saw   34 people   charged with crimes as a result of his efforts, did not have ulterior motives in his investigation or findings. GOP politicians are trying to twist your perception of the truth and blur the facts so you don’t quite get the whole story. And that tactic should scare everyone.

By  JENNA BIRCH

Photo: Alex Wong/Getty Images News/Getty Images

Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
smarty_function_ntUser_is_admin: user_id parameter required
Find text within the comments Find 
 
Ender
1  seeder  Ender    3 months ago

The depths some will fall.

 
 
 
WallyW
1.1  WallyW  replied to  Ender @1    3 months ago

In that same vein........

the way the democrats treated Kavanaugh should terrify and alarm us.

No presumption of iinnocence, due process ignored

 
 
 
Ender
1.1.1  seeder  Ender  replied to  WallyW @1.1    3 months ago

I am not of the belief that two wrongs make a right.

 
 
 
WallyW
1.1.2  WallyW  replied to  Ender @1.1.1    3 months ago

The Republicans wanted truthful answers to legitimate questions, nothing wrong about it.

 
 
 
Ender
1.1.3  seeder  Ender  replied to  WallyW @1.1.2    3 months ago

They wanted to score political points.

 
 
 
devangelical
1.1.4  devangelical  replied to  Ender @1.1.3    3 months ago

it was more like the national trumpster ass licking competition. really can't blame them though, with the revolving doors on the cabinet and white (supremacist) house, it was an audition for the next job opening. they all knew their demigod was watching while stuffing his face with chicken nuggets.

 
 
 
WallyW
1.1.5  WallyW  replied to  Ender @1.1.3    3 months ago
They wanted to score political points.

What do you think the Dems were up to?

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
1.1.6  Freedom Warrior  replied to  Ender @1.1.3    3 months ago

 It’s way past the point of scoring political points it’s time for deep state heads to roll that’s what this is about 

 
 
 
Ender
1.1.7  seeder  Ender  replied to  Freedom Warrior @1.1.6    3 months ago

The investigation into the investigation is only about rolling heads in a certain direction.

 
 
 
Ronin2
1.1.8  Ronin2  replied to  Ender @1.1.3    3 months ago

Like the Dems didn't?

Please. jrSmiley_30_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.1.9  Tessylo  replied to  Freedom Warrior @1.1.6    3 months ago

Deep state?  Who would they be?  No one has ever answered that question because there is no such thing.  Its alt right conspiracy bullshit 

 
 
 
Karri
1.1.10  Karri  replied to  WallyW @1.1    3 months ago
the way the democrats treated Kavanaugh should terrify and alarm us.

The way Kavanaugh treated female Senators should terrify and alarm us.

 
 
 
bugsy
1.1.11  bugsy  replied to  Karri @1.1.10    3 months ago

Exactly how did he treat female Senators?

Be specific and please do not use liberal "feelings".

Thanks

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
1.1.12  Freedom Warrior  replied to  Tessylo @1.1.9    3 months ago

Is that a Mueller impression.  Fusion GPS?  "I'm Not Familiar with that.

 
 
 
Karri
1.1.13  Karri  replied to  bugsy @1.1.11    3 months ago

A perfect example was Klobuchar asked him about drinking to blackouts.  He then asked her about her drinking.  In other cases, he also treated the females as though they had no right to question him.

Too be honest he looked drunk to me during his testimony -- and a mean drunk at that.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
1.1.14  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Ronin2 @1.1.8    3 months ago

give us a damn example, that could possibly equate a situation, that might come anywhere in the same zip code, with which you have GPS;d, in an attempt to quadrant off, where i have decisively decided to make a point, as irregardless of my pointless, previous posturing, no matter how fn' don'tmatterless, causes rare;y does what don;t matterless, become matters, that matter more.    Conversations not comprehensively coherently , co-explained , by complimenting cohorts, who sought an oh nimotee  over obvious omittances that obliterated logical and reasonable excuses, to excuse blatant violations, against what our oh so PROUD COUNTRY, ONCE STOOD FOR..

as America was designed by a very intelligent group of Four Fathers, whov'e bin Disrespected BIG TIME, buy a Trump Chump who would HIDE from SERVICE, as he belittles SERVICEMEN while they ACTUALLY Fought for our RIGHTS, that he feels he is in control of...

This SHould OFFEND ALL OF US

.

People, True Hero's of America, fought for ALL AMERICANS to have 'RIGHTS'

and Fckn NOT WRONG interpretations of our LAWS, so as to pit American against American.

WE ARE ALL AMERICANS

WE CAN COME tOGETHER TO MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN !!!

.

This is not his agenda 

will all of US Americans come completely together again, with one who has shown US his agenda is to DIVIDE.

THINK about what have Trumps objectives been, and BE HONEST to Yourself.

.

Trump has trespassed upon a countries peoples in an attempt to divide, so as he and far too many, attempt to conjure a disconnect amongst brothers and sisters, via LIES "from the tablecloth" , from the MSM, from the Lame SM, from the faux think tanks, the true Jeepers, the fired cannons, the hired canyons, the lowered flags, the hired lags, the tightened nutz, the bloated gutz, The overpacked bagz, sagging like descending jags, jagged 

to puncture insulation , insulating , those in need of insulation,

from Truth

Truth Is

PEOPLE, AMERICA STANDS FOR SO MUCH !

tHINK ABOUT THE EMpOWERMENT GIVEN A NON STOP LIAR

and compare him to an AMERICAN HERO who served his country as a Hero Marine, an individual who was beyond reproach , and non  biasly sought the Truth, all , while being , consistently attacked for , bringinging Nothing but the TRUTH, HE WAS REQUESTED TO SEEK< out into the open, .

Story written on with a narrative, of how he, Trumpp's agenda, was for bringing FALSE , HOAX, WHITCHUNT, Bullshit, as described by the PROVEN FCKN LIAR, TRUMPP, against his honorable legally and rightfully correctly approved investigator.

.

Mueller is an American Hero who once again Proved WHY,

While Trumpp will LIE till the day he does DIE,

.

ABOUT N E TRUTH...

WHo , out of your group, would wish to compare a TRUE American Hero,

with,

Trump, a NATIONAL EMBARRASSMENT , on Display Every Fricken DAY

,

the over ever over exceeding ZERO, X's many

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
2  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh    3 months ago

Yeah, it was terrifying that the guy leading the special counsel didn't know anything about the investigation nor the report on the investigation.

 
 
 
Ender
2.1  seeder  Ender  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @2    3 months ago

So he didn't know anything, uh huh...

This is the point of the article. You are just using character assassination.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
2.1.1  XDm9mm  replied to  Ender @2.1    3 months ago
So he didn't know anything, uh huh...

Yeah, he didn't know anything.  Hell, he even went so far as to refuse to indicate who wrote his previous press conference speech....  not allowing post speech questions.

So, not knowing the SUBSTANCE of what he "reported" is character assassination now?

And not knowing what Fusion GPS is was quite telling.   Hell, he didn't even need to read the report to know that.  Just read the newspapers or watch any news broadcast related to the investigation anytime during the last two years and he would have had a clue.

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
2.1.2  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh  replied to  Ender @2.1    3 months ago
This is the point of the article. You are just using character assassination.

I watched, he looked like a real idiot. How do you not know who Glen Simpson is or fusion GPS?

 
 
 
Ender
2.1.3  seeder  Ender  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @2.1.2    3 months ago

I mainly listened. He was given guidelines by the DOJ on what he can talk about.

So you actually think that he was appointed then sat back and did nothing?

 
 
 
Ender
2.1.4  seeder  Ender  replied to  XDm9mm @2.1.1    3 months ago

Mueller was not tasked in finding about about the origins of the dossier, nor any warrants nor the fisa court.

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
2.1.5  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh  replied to  Ender @2.1.4    3 months ago

As several former DOJ officials said last night on the tube, it's investigation 101 and they missed it.

 
 
 
Ender
2.1.6  seeder  Ender  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @2.1.5    3 months ago
MUELLER: Well, as I--as I say, it's outside my purview and it's being handled in the department by others.

It is part of an ongoing investigation that the DOJ is right now perusing. He is not allowed to talk about it.

 
 
 
gooseisgone
2.1.7  gooseisgone  replied to  Ender @2.1.4    3 months ago
Mueller was not tasked in finding about about the origins of the dossier, nor any warrants nor the fisa court.

He was tasked with finding any other crimes his investigation uncovered. Hell, I don't think he was tasked with finding obstruction.

 
 
 
Ender
2.1.8  seeder  Ender  replied to  gooseisgone @2.1.7    3 months ago

He was still not tasked with delving into the fisa courts nor would there be any reason for him to do so.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
2.1.9  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Ender @2.1.6    3 months ago
It is part of an ongoing investigation that the DOJ is right now perusing. He is not allowed to talk about it.

That did seem to come up a lot every time it looked like the Democrats would get to the core of possible criminal conduct. The counter intelligence investigation is still ongoing so I have to assume that's what he was referring to, which means this is by no means over. The truth will out, as they say, and I really doubt the truth, when exposed, will make Trump or his cohorts happy. I wouldn't be surprised if they are carted off in handcuffs after he leaves office and the Republican party does their best "Get behind me Satan! I never knew you! You duped we faithful, good, unsuspecting, righteous white Christian Americans into voting for you! How could you?! Have you no shame? And really, it's all Democrats fault for pushing us towards a lying populist who we thought was one of us! That's right, Trump is a horrible criminal and it's all Democrats fault that he became President!".

 
 
 
XDm9mm
2.1.10  XDm9mm  replied to  Ender @2.1.4    3 months ago
Mueller was not tasked in finding about about the origins of the dossier, nor any warrants nor the fisa court.

He didn't need to find out about any of that, but he should have at least KNOWN about them.  Where has he been for the last two years, Outer Mongolia?

 
 
 
WallyW
2.1.11  WallyW  replied to  Ender @2.1.4    3 months ago
Mueller was not tasked in finding about about the origins of the dossier, nor any warrants nor the fisa court.

He was allowed to follow the breadcrumbs regardless of the direction they took. That included the veracity of the dossier and FISA warrants.

 
 
 
Ender
2.1.12  seeder  Ender  replied to  WallyW @2.1.11    3 months ago

Why would he look at the warrants? He was looking at the trump campaign.

Even if he did, he couldn't talk about that or answer any questions about it.

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
2.1.13  Freedom Warrior  replied to  Ender @2.1    3 months ago

 There is no character left to assassinate now.

 
 
 
Ender
2.1.14  seeder  Ender  replied to  Freedom Warrior @2.1.13    3 months ago

Your comment is the epitome of what the article is about.

 
 
 
Ronin2
2.1.15  Ronin2  replied to  Ender @2.1.14    3 months ago

If Mueller wanted to be unbiased he wouldn't have hired a team of Hillary and Obama sycophants to start with.

He damn well would have checked the legality of what he was asked to do. That includes finding out the Steele dossier was nothing more than a fake political hit job paid for by the Clinton campaign.

When even Strzok, said there was "no there, there." Mueller should have listened.

https://thehill.com/opinion/criminal-justice/435803-mueller-report-lessons-for-all-including-former-law-enforcement

Peter Strzok was right about one thing: It turns out  there was no there there .

He was locked on getting Trump for anything at all costs, period.  It shows by the charges against Trump administration, campaign officials, and those that worked for him on anything but conspiracy or collusion charges.

Want to explain why Mueller went to court unprepared against Russian bot companies? They weren't prepared; and looked like complete and utter asses. Then pulled the case as Russia was fishing for information. Made his team look like corrupt, morons, that couldn't follow our own laws.

Mueller didn't write the report, didn't read the report, and didn't have anything to do with the basic of the investigation from the way he was caught flat footed repeatedly.

The left needs to look up the definition of entrapment.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
2.1.16  Trout Giggles  replied to  Ender @2.1.12    3 months ago
Even if he did, he couldn't talk about that or answer any questions about it.

Isn't a lot of what he can't talk about a matter of national security?

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
2.2  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @2    3 months ago

I felt the same way watching the Democrat's witch with Brett Kavanaugh and the way the progressive liberal dems went after him like a pack of hungry rabid wolves...

 
 
 
WallyW
2.3  WallyW  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @2    3 months ago

If Mueller ever had any character, he forever lost it by selling out to the dirty Dems

 
 
 
charger 383
2.3.1  charger 383  replied to  WallyW @2.3    3 months ago

he already sold it to Roger Goodell with the investigation he did for the NFL a few years ago

 
 
 
Sunshine
3  Sunshine    3 months ago

Nice try to turn the shit show put on by Democrats around to a hissy fit about Republicans.

Poor Mueller being picked on by Republicans....

384

 
 
 
Ender
3.1  seeder  Ender  replied to  Sunshine @3    3 months ago

So you agree with the republicans grandstanding and calling it a partisan witch hunt, lying to the American people that it totally exonerated trump, saying that Mueller should be prosecuted...

The real shit show is the ones turning a blind eye and attacking anyone that goes against their narrative.

Your post has zero substance.

 
 
 
gooseisgone
3.1.1  gooseisgone  replied to  Ender @3.1    3 months ago
the republicans grandstanding

Oh spare me, how many times did we hear "No One Should Be Above the Law".

 
 
 
Ender
3.1.2  seeder  Ender  replied to  gooseisgone @3.1.1    3 months ago

Is saying that Mueller should be prosecuted following the law? It is partisan bullshit. The only ones trying to be above the law are the ones pushing for total exoneration.

The next Dem president that does the things trump is doing, I expect to not hear one word from the right. The door has been opened and is being held open.

 
 
 
Sunshine
3.1.3  Sunshine  replied to  Ender @3.1    3 months ago
Your post has zero substance.

The comment is what the article merits.

jrSmiley_90_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Ender
3.1.4  seeder  Ender  replied to  Sunshine @3.1.3    3 months ago

Then why comment at all.

 
 
 
Sunshine
3.1.5  Sunshine  replied to  Ender @3.1.4    3 months ago

Because I wanted to.

 
 
 
Ender
3.1.6  seeder  Ender  replied to  Sunshine @3.1.5    3 months ago

And you were not denied. Even though the post had the consistency of one sticking their tongue out.

 
 
 
Sunshine
3.1.7  Sunshine  replied to  Ender @3.1.6    3 months ago
And you were not denied. 

Denied what?

Even though the post had the consistency of one sticking their tongue out.

Seems to have you all upset to call bullshit on your whiney article.

 
 
 
Ender
3.1.8  seeder  Ender  replied to  Sunshine @3.1.7    3 months ago

No, I am use to the bullshit that you spew.

Never any substance. Always shallow.

 
 
 
Sunshine
3.1.9  Sunshine  replied to  Ender @3.1.8    3 months ago

Like this bullshit article.  Like I said, the article merits the comment.

 
 
 
Karri
3.1.10  Karri  replied to  gooseisgone @3.1.1    3 months ago
how many times did we hear "No One Should Be Above the Law".

Do you have a problem with that?  It is one of the founding principles of this country.

 
 
 
Snuffy
4  Snuffy    3 months ago

I had to go back and re-read the posted article for the seed. When I first read it I thought maybe it was from the Onion or Mad Magazine. I mean, considering how the Kavanaugh hearings went I thought a democrat lambasting anybody for creating emotional diversions meant to undermine just had to be writing for a satire article.

 
 
 
Ender
4.1  seeder  Ender  replied to  Snuffy @4    3 months ago

Deflection.

 
 
 
Snuffy
4.1.1  Snuffy  replied to  Ender @4.1    3 months ago

No more deflection than #3 above. And it responds directly to the seed, comedy for comedy.

 
 
 
Ender
4.1.2  seeder  Ender  replied to  Snuffy @4.1.1    3 months ago

So instead of any kind of rebuttal, the rebuttal is dismissal.

Sad how far down the rabbit hole some willing fall.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
4.1.3  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Ender @4.1    3 months ago

No, just plain fact. To the Dems, what was good for the goose was definitely not good for the gander.

 
 
 
Ender
4.1.4  seeder  Ender  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @4.1.3    3 months ago

So same old, same old, and every side just keeps acting like assholes.

Great strategy...

 
 
 
Colorado Curt
4.2  Colorado Curt  replied to  Snuffy @4    3 months ago

The seed article was by a writer who had the political sophistication of Alexandria Ocasio Cortez. Every point she makes you could respond to by saying, "That's a good thing, isn't it?" In fact, using the word "terrify" in the title has to be the product of a snowflake mind.

 
 
 
Ender
4.2.1  seeder  Ender  replied to  Colorado Curt @4.2    3 months ago

So a rep saying that Mueller managed to "violate every principle and the most sacred traditions”

Is a good thing?

It is terrifying that the reps would not dare go against their leader. Would only protect him no matter what he does.

That is not representing the people.

Making fun and demeaning the author just shows a lack of merit for those against what she wrote.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
4.2.2  Sean Treacy  replied to  Ender @4.2.1    3 months ago

Innocent until proven guilty is sacred to the American legal system.  People should be upset that mueller changed that to guilty until  proven exonerated couldn’t provide any justification for that switch.

 
 
 
Ender
4.2.3  seeder  Ender  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.2.2    3 months ago

If everyone is considered innocent...should no investigations ever ensue?

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
4.2.4  Sean Treacy  replied to  Ender @4.2.3    3 months ago

That’s not what means.

The government proves guilt. Citizens don’t prove that they are “exonerated.”

 
 
 
Ender
4.2.5  seeder  Ender  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.2.4    3 months ago

Citizens do have to prove innocence.

 
 
 
pat wilson
4.2.6  pat wilson  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.2.4    3 months ago
Citizens don’t prove that they are “exonerated.”

Trump tries to do that every other day.

 
 
 
WallyW
4.2.7  WallyW  replied to  Ender @4.2.5    3 months ago
Citizens do have to prove innocence.

R U Serious? jrSmiley_88_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
4.2.8  Freedom Warrior  replied to  Ender @4.2.5    3 months ago

Yeah in certain fascist regimes but we’re not there yet this is still the  US based on bedrock constitutional principles despite the efforts of people like Obama.

 
 
 
Ender
4.2.9  seeder  Ender  replied to  Freedom Warrior @4.2.8    3 months ago

Way to go with hyperbolic, deflecting rhetoric.

Do you think you could get arrested for a crime and not have to hire a lawyer and defend, if not prove your innocence...

It sounds just wonderful and all...innocent until proven guilty. Sadly we all know that is not the way it works.

 
 
 
dennis smith
4.2.10  dennis smith  replied to  Ender @4.2.1    3 months ago

What is terrifying is that the Dems had the opportunity to ask the questions they say the Repubs should have asked. 

The Dems follow their leader, Pelosi, no matter that she is a has been and is being outdone by the immature squad.

 
 
 
MUVA
4.2.11  MUVA  replied to  Ender @4.2.5    3 months ago

no you are innocent till proven guilty there are no special circumstances. 

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
4.2.12  Freedom Warrior  replied to  Ender @4.2.9    3 months ago
Sadly we all know that is not the way it works.

Well we can't account for all those that lack integrity as I previously stated and as we see here in the expressions of several Dem / Anti-Trump partisans. Yet every jury I have been a part of that was explicitly the instructions given by the court.  

 
 
 
Snuffy
4.2.13  Snuffy  replied to  Ender @4.2.9    3 months ago

wow,  but you really have that backwards.  In a court room you are not having to prove our innocence. The prosecution is trying to prove you are guilty of the charges and you hire a lawyer to defend against those accusations. But you never have to prove you are innocent. That is a standard of the American legal system.

 
 
 
Texan1211
4.2.14  Texan1211  replied to  Ender @4.2.5    3 months ago
Citizens do have to prove innocence.

Perhaps you live in a country other than the US.

That IS NOT how it works here.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
4.2.15  XDm9mm  replied to  Snuffy @4.2.13    3 months ago
you hire a lawyer to defend against those accusations.

Actually, you hire a lawyer to ensure the intricacies of the law are adhered to and not abused by the prosecution. 

Were it not for the fact that it's technically a stacked deck against you, you have no choice.  It's a rigged system where 'lawyers' write the laws used to prosecute you, which involves a lawyer prosecuting you, which forces you to hire a lawyer to defend you against the prosecution of the laws other lawyers wrote.

That was essentially the explanation given to me by my nephews wife....  a lawyer.   As she willingly and happily notes, it's one of the greatest scams ever perpetrated on people globally.   Lawyers get to write the rules of the game, play (prosecute) the game and umpire (defend) the game.

 
 
 
Colorado Curt
5  Colorado Curt    3 months ago

" Some Republicans yelled, like John Ratcliffe (R-TX), who emphatically   insisted that Mueller   managed to “violate every principle and the most sacred traditions” of prosecutors by even detailing potential evidence of obstruction crimes without the ability to bring a charge."

Actually, the representative made a fair and logical point. Would you like to come away from a criminal proceeding where the prosecutor says, "Nope, not enough evidence here. We can't convict you. You're free to go, but don't think you're exonerated, because we're going to tell everyone that you're a scumbag.."?

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
5.1  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh  replied to  Colorado Curt @5    3 months ago

Unprecedented, and as a former DOJ attorney he knew this.

 
 
 
Ender
5.2  seeder  Ender  replied to  Colorado Curt @5    3 months ago

Happens all the time to people, why should trump be any different.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
5.2.1  XDm9mm  replied to  Ender @5.2    3 months ago
Happens all the time to people, why should trump be any different.

Citations are in order.  So cite them please.

 
 
 
Ender
5.2.2  seeder  Ender  replied to  XDm9mm @5.2.1    3 months ago

So you think there has never been someone that has been found not guilty yet people say other wise?

OJ comes to mind.

 
 
 
Colorado Curt
5.2.3  Colorado Curt  replied to  Ender @5.2.2    3 months ago

O.J. is a great example of someone who was never exonerated. However, he proves the point that a not-guilty finding is final. O.J. never served one day for the two murders. The reason for that is that there is no such finding as "not exonerated."

 
 
 
XDm9mm
5.2.4  XDm9mm  replied to  Ender @5.2.2    3 months ago
So you think there has never been someone that has been found not guilty yet people say other wise?

Was OJ TRIED in a court of law and found not guilty?  YES.   Ergo, he was legally exonerated.

Was President Trump tried in a court of law?  NO.  NO charges of any kind were brought as there was obviously INSUFFICIENT evidence of anything chargeable.  Now, you might believe otherwise, but the PROSECUTORS with appreciably more knowledge than you or I know better.   If you can't charge, you walk away, QUIETLY.

 
 
 
Colorado Curt
5.2.5  Colorado Curt  replied to  XDm9mm @5.2.4    3 months ago

Actually, a not-guilty finding never exonerates anyone. It simply means that the prosecution failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that someone committed the offense charged. Example: I shoot someone in public, but the police fail to execute a proper search warrant. If the gun is the only evidence they have, I walk. I'm not exonerated, because the cops know I did it.

 
 
 
dennis smith
5.2.6  dennis smith  replied to  Colorado Curt @5.2.5    3 months ago
If the law is not followed and one is found not guilty, he/she is NOT GUILTY.
Your spin is very sad

 
 
 
Karri
5.2.7  Karri  replied to  XDm9mm @5.2.4    3 months ago
there was obviously INSUFFICIENT evidence of anything chargeable. 

Have you read the Mueller Report, especially Vol II?  There was sufficient evidence of obstruction.

 
 
 
Texan1211
5.2.8  Texan1211  replied to  Karri @5.2.7    3 months ago
Have you read the Mueller Report, especially Vol II? There was sufficient evidence of obstruction.

137 Democrats in the House disagree with you, as evidenced by their recent vote shooting down impeachment.

 
 
 
Karri
5.2.9  Karri  replied to  Texan1211 @5.2.8    3 months ago

They voted against impeaching him over his racist tweets.  (And I agree with that; censure would be more appropriate for that.)

Obstruction of justice was one of the counts against Nixon.  Even the Republicans could no longer support him.  Where are patriotic Republicans today?  (Don' look to McConnell.  He just stopped two bills that would increase security for our voting systems.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
5.3  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Colorado Curt @5    3 months ago
Would you like to come away from a criminal proceeding where the prosecutor says, "Nope, not enough evidence here. We can't convict you. You're free to go, but don't think you're exonerated, because we're going to tell everyone that you're a scumbag.."?

Mueller never said "Not enough evidence here, we can't convict you". He simply laid out the evidence and effectively said "We do not have the authority to use the evidence we have collected to reach a conclusion about the Presidents guilt.". In fact he specifically stated "if we had had confidence that the President clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so,".

He also didn't say "you're free to go", but he did reply quickly when asked if the President could be indicted after he left office with a strong "Yes".

I really have to wonder about how anyone is confused by this any longer. If you've read the report, anyone with fair reading comprehension can see exactly what Mueller was doing, which was gather evidence for congress to do what they see fit because they are the only check on the executive, the DOJ cannot be the branch of government that accuses and indicts a sitting President of criminal conduct because they are part of the executive.

The report reveals that they could not find any direct evidence of criminal conspiracy between the Trump campaign and the Russian government. It does not say they did not find any evidence of possible conspiracy. If they had found direct evidence they would have laid it out just like the obstruction charges without concluding the President committed aa crime, though they would (and did) indict everyone around him who was lying to them and obstructing their investigation into the very real Russian election meddling. So even if they had uncovered a conversation between Trump and Putin where Trump was openly asking what he could do in return for Russia's help during the election, they would have stated what happened but not drawn any conclusion since that would be congresses job.

 
 
 
Colorado Curt
5.3.1  Colorado Curt  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @5.3    3 months ago
"We do not have the authority to use the evidence we have collected to reach a conclusion about the Presidents guilt."
Actually, I believe the distinction here is not that they didn't have the evidence, but that the evidence they had was inconclusive and would not support charges. Following the report's publication, the Attorney General did what Mueller wasn't willing to do: He read the report and agreed with the findings. You need direct evidence to convict someone of conspiracy. If you can't conclude that, the whole thing is a nothing-burger.
Give it up. We're not confused here. However, you may be suffering under the delusion that Mueller said President Trump could be prosecuted after he left office. Yes, ANY president could prosecuted after leaving office, but Mueller never implied that Trump committed any obstruction of justice. He even had to walk back a misstatement in that vein. 

 
 
 
Colorado Curt
6  Colorado Curt    3 months ago

Also, " Others pulled stunts, like Rep. Michael Turner (R-OH) who brought out several thick   law books asking   Mueller why he said the report   didn’t exonerate Trump, when the special counsel doesn’t “have the power or authority to exonerate.”

I thought Rep. Turner's stunt was a great illustration that upheld his argument. Both incidents took the air out of the argument that if Donald Trump wasn't exonerated, he must be guilty of something. That argument is just a cop out, a passive-aggressive slap by a cabal of partisan prosecutors, and the Republicans did a great job in disinfecting it. 

 
 
 
Ender
6.1  seeder  Ender  replied to  Colorado Curt @6    3 months ago

Actually it just shows to me how his hands were tied. He could not prosecute and could not exonerate.

Yet he gave his opinion.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
6.1.1  XDm9mm  replied to  Ender @6.1    3 months ago
He could not prosecute and could not exonerate.

PROSECUTORS do NOT//NOT exonerate.  

They charge and prosecute, or they, in the street colloquial, SHUT THE FUCK UP.

 
 
 
Colorado Curt
6.1.2  Colorado Curt  replied to  Ender @6.1    3 months ago

A fair point, but I don't believe that the Attorney General agreed with him. The Attorney General said that the report could have alleged collusion without actually bringing charges. It wasn't the job of Mueller (or the people who actually did all the work and wrote the report) to do anything but state the findings. To say "No, we didn't exonerate the President is tantamount to throwing red meat to those who want this fiasco to drag on and on.

 
 
 
Colorado Curt
6.1.3  Colorado Curt  replied to  XDm9mm @6.1.1    3 months ago

Easy there, partner. I agree with your point, but you're never going to get those who disagree with you to STFU. [Deleted]

 
 
 
Ender
6.1.4  seeder  Ender  replied to  Colorado Curt @6.1.2    3 months ago

It is going to drag on regardless. There are still investigations continuing. Only Mueller's chapter is over.

Barr thinks that no sitting president can be indicted on any crime.

Mueller is also being truthful, the report in no means exonerated him. Anyone can read that. It is not throwing red meat when one can just read the report.

Mueller is now a private citizen and can say what he thinks.

 
 
 
Ender
6.1.5  seeder  Ender  replied to  XDm9mm @6.1.1    3 months ago

So you just want to play semantics and tell a now private citizen to shut up while he is on the stand giving testimony.

Way to go...now that is following the rule of law....

 
 
 
XDm9mm
6.1.6  XDm9mm  replied to  Ender @6.1.4    3 months ago
There are still investigations continuing. Only Mueller's chapter is over.

Yes, there most certainly are investigations ongoing.   But New York and other states will need to wait until January 2025 to have their day in court with him.

I'm waiting for the IG and other investigations on the origins of this debacle to come out.  Now they will be most interesting.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
6.1.7  XDm9mm  replied to  Ender @6.1.5    3 months ago
So you just want to play semantics and tell a now private citizen to shut up while he is on the stand giving testimony.

He was speaking as the AUTHOR (well purported author anyway) of the report.  That makes his 'testimony' official.

Further, his role was not to exonerate.   No prosecutor can exonerate.  A prosecutor charges or not.  PERIOD end of story.

It's not up to the subject of an investigation to prove innocence, it's up to the prosecutor to prove guilt.  NOT to impugn someone not being charged.

 
 
 
Colorado Curt
6.1.8  Colorado Curt  replied to  Ender @6.1.5    3 months ago

Actually, Mueller may be a private citizen now, but before he resigned he was a duly appointed Special Counsel appointed to conduct an investigation. Investigators and prosecutors have no role in determining whether someone is exonerated, only whether they should be charged or not charged. 

I think Robert Mueller was just a figurehead to give stature to the investigation. The red meat was manufactured by the dozen or so Democrat partisans on his team, who couldn't break the solid wall of the truth in the matter: Trump, love him or hate him, didn't do anything wrong. So, instead, they soaked their report with innuendo that ended up as a suppository for Trump-hating members of congress.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
6.1.9  XDm9mm  replied to  Colorado Curt @6.1.3    3 months ago
but you're never going to get those who disagree with you to STFU.

Actually I didn't tell Ender to STFU, I simply indicated that's what Mueller should have done.   But we know Mueller was simply a puppet with his strings being pulled by Trump haters.

 
 
 
Colorado Curt
6.1.10  Colorado Curt  replied to  XDm9mm @6.1.7    3 months ago

Very well put. And when Barr gets around to the fraudulent basis for the report, I'm guessing there is going to be a very tall (6'7") prisoner named Comey who is going to take a big fall.

 
 
 
Colorado Curt
6.1.11  Colorado Curt  replied to  XDm9mm @6.1.9    3 months ago

Okay. My bad. It's difficult sometimes in the medium to know who someone is cussing out. 

I agree with your assessment, though.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
6.1.12  XDm9mm  replied to  Colorado Curt @6.1.10    3 months ago
And when Barr gets around to the fraudulent basis for the report, I'm guessing there is going to be a very tall (6'7") prisoner named Comey who is going to take a big fall.

Comey is but the tip of a melting iceberg.  And I believe there will be other highly placed personnel, two of whom had been very vocal yet now seem to have lost their voice that will be possibly sharing quarters with Comey.

 
 
 
Ender
6.1.13  seeder  Ender  replied to  XDm9mm @6.1.9    3 months ago

I didn't take it that way, I knew what you meant.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
6.1.14  XDm9mm  replied to  Colorado Curt @6.1.11    3 months ago
Okay. My bad. It's difficult sometimes in the medium to know who someone is cussing out. 

No problem..  

I know my brain is sometimes slower than my slow typing!!  LOL

 
 
 
XDm9mm
6.1.15  XDm9mm  replied to  Ender @6.1.13    3 months ago
I didn't take it that way, I knew what you meant.

I didn't think you did....   we often times agree to disagree, but we've always been civil to each other!!  

 
 
 
Ender
6.1.16  seeder  Ender  replied to  Colorado Curt @6.1.8    3 months ago

As I said earlier, his hands were tied either way. Even if he wanted to charge, he could not according to DOJ guidelines.

So he basically said he couldn't charge but would not say he is innocent. That is basically what the whole thing is. Exoneration or not is misleading.

So if the DOJ investigation into the origins does not go the way I think it should, can I call it a partisan group? Do you think that everything in the report is manufactured?

Partisan politics aside, the next candidate that looks to get info from a foreign official, it will be acceptable.

 
 
 
Colorado Curt
6.1.17  Colorado Curt  replied to  Ender @6.1.16    3 months ago

You can look this up. Just Google "Barr says that Mueller could have recommended charges." 

If Comey can recommend "no charges" against Hillary Clinton's egregious violation of State Department and U.S. classified material regulations, Mueller could have applied the same precedent and opined that the president committed obstruction, but I leave that to constitutional processes beyond my jurisdiction.

The only way his hands were tied was in answering questions about ongoing investigations (and a lot of other stuff he just didn't know about, because, really, he didn't write the report.)

 
 
 
Ender
6.1.18  seeder  Ender  replied to  XDm9mm @6.1.15    3 months ago
we often times agree to disagree, but we've always been civil to each other!! 

Well, I will admit that sometimes I can be a smartass.  Haha

 
 
 
Colorado Curt
6.1.19  Colorado Curt  replied to  Ender @6.1.16    3 months ago
"So if the DOJ investigation into the origins does not go the way I think it should, can I call it a partisan group? Do you think that everything in the report is manufactured?"
In the case of the Mueller investigation, yes you could. Remember those two FBI hacks and their love texts? What about the main investigator, a notorious Democrat partisan? The rest were all Hillary Clinton donors and supporters. Mueller failed here. He should have vetted these folks.
I don't think anything in the report is "manufactured." And you statement "he basically said he couldn't charge, but he would not say he is innocent" is exactly the point here. If you can't charge someone, you say nothing, or you say like the Jerrold Nadler used to say about Clinton: "His behavior did not rise to the level of an impeachable offense." 

 
 
 
Ender
6.1.20  seeder  Ender  replied to  Colorado Curt @6.1.17    3 months ago

The way I look at it is he did not recommend either way. He made his report and just passed it on.

Both sides wanted to use him which is why I think he didn't want to testify.

Yes the Dems wanted something they didn't get but to the point of the article, the reps just basically attacked his character, attack his abilities, attacked his state of mind, attacked his loyalties, attacked his reasoning, etc.

 
 
 
Ender
6.1.21  seeder  Ender  replied to  Colorado Curt @6.1.19    3 months ago

Sorry but I don't buy the all about Clinton narrative. Even if trump was impeached, she would never be president. I don't buy the revenge aspect that people are trying to peddle.

 
 
 
Colorado Curt
6.1.22  Colorado Curt  replied to  Ender @6.1.21    3 months ago

I was referring to the impeachment proceedings of Bill Clinton.

 
 
 
Colorado Curt
6.1.23  Colorado Curt  replied to  Ender @6.1.20    3 months ago
, the reps just basically attacked his character, attack his abilities, attacked his state of mind, attacked his loyalties, attacked his reasoning, etc.

Actually, from what I saw, everyone treated Robert Mueller with a somewhat embarrassed respect. It was obvious that although of good character, his abilities were not apparent, his state of mind was befuddled, and his reasoning was likewise not firing on all cylinders. No one attacked his loyalties. In fact, at the end of the second proceedings, the Republicans gave up their time and eased up on the old gentleman.

You want to see rough treatment, check out how the Democrats on the Senate Judicial Committee smeared and excoriated Justice Kavanaugh. Democrats wrote the book on beating up on witnesses.

 
 
 
Ender
6.1.24  seeder  Ender  replied to  Colorado Curt @6.1.23    3 months ago

I saw several almost frothing at the mouth. The diatribe and the beginning of the House proceedings for one. Then one guy almost yelling.

I don't agree with smear tactics yet imo Kavanaugh should not have been on the court. I didn't like the way they treated the woman that initially accused him. The whole thing was a fiasco.

My main problem is yes I don't like a lot of the things the Dems do yet I will call them out. I can disagree with their direction or policy. It seems reps walk lockstep and anyone dare otherwise is eviscerated.

 
 
 
Colorado Curt
6.1.25  Colorado Curt  replied to  Ender @6.1.21    3 months ago

Those impeachment proceedings brought a more corpulent Jerrold Nadler into the limelight where he continually defended Bill Clinton's perjury and said that even if the president did that he could still do his job.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
6.1.26  XDm9mm  replied to  Ender @6.1.16    3 months ago
So he basically said he couldn't charge but would not say he is innocent.

If ANY prosecutor can't charge, he/she should zip it and not say a damned thing.  PERIOD.

 
 
 
Ender
6.1.27  seeder  Ender  replied to  Colorado Curt @6.1.25    3 months ago

I was not as political during the Clinton proceedings as I am today. Mostly what I heard was on the local news at the time. I have read more on it now.

Was never a fan of him after his I didn't inhale comment.

Barr was involved in the Iran-Contra affair at the end of the Reagan term. If I remember correctly, he was instrumental in Bush 1 pardoning those involved.

 
 
 
Ender
6.1.28  seeder  Ender  replied to  XDm9mm @6.1.26    3 months ago

Should that include that idiot Smollett? There are times where it may be more prudent to speak.

 
 
 
Colorado Curt
6.1.29  Colorado Curt  replied to  Ender @6.1.24    3 months ago
I saw several almost frothing at the mouth. The diatribe and the beginning of the House proceedings for one. Then one guy almost yelling.

I saw no evidence of escaping saliva on the part of any of the Republican questioners. As to "diatribe," yeah, that's what those bozos do. It's their moment in the limelight to preen and perform for their folks. 

You're entitled to your opinion about Kavanaugh, but I think he got a fair hearing. Both sides were heard and the "ayes" had it. 

 
 
 
dennis smith
6.1.30  dennis smith  replied to  Ender @6.1    3 months ago

And yet the Dems clamored for 2 years about how his report would be the end all knowing full well what he could or couldn't do per DOJ rules.

Classic Dem waste of taxpayer money.  Dem party will be taken over by the squad which most Americans know is a losing group of people. Even the dems will not cooperate with them.

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
6.1.31  FLYNAVY1  replied to  dennis smith @6.1.30    3 months ago

And remind me again..... Just how many uneventful Benghazi hearings were there?  How many prosecutions came out of those SEVEN money making evolutions? 

 
 
 
MrFrost
6.1.32  MrFrost  replied to  dennis smith @6.1.30    3 months ago
Classic Dem waste of taxpayer money.

The investigation MADE 10 million dollars. It also had results. Benghazi? 250 million dollars, not even one charge. I am sure you didn't complain one bit either. 

 
 
 
dennis smith
6.1.33  dennis smith  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @6.1.31    3 months ago

This is not about Bengazi. Deflection does not work.

 
 
 
dennis smith
6.1.34  dennis smith  replied to  MrFrost @6.1.32    3 months ago

What results? The dems put all their eggs in one basket in the Mueller report. Then they held hearings with Mueller hoping to find something that was not in the report. Now they are pursuing their own investigations, when that fails, they will no doubt find another reason to put on another silly show.

It will all result in another 4 years of Trump and Repub majority of both houses of Congress. 

BTW, this is not about Benzagi. Is deflection all you have? 

 
 
 
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
6.2  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom  replied to  Colorado Curt @6    3 months ago
Also, "Others pulled stunts, like Rep. Michael Turner (R-OH) who brought out several thick law books asking Mueller why he said the report didn’t exonerate Trump, when the special counsel doesn’t “have the power or authority to exonerate.”

I have a feeling that Michael Turner had no idea how incredibly stupid he sounded.  He was all bristled and accusatory...like he had just caught Mueller window-peeping at Kellyanne Conway's house.   

 
 
 
Colorado Curt
6.2.1  Colorado Curt  replied to  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom @6.2    3 months ago

I thought Representative Turner sounded knowledgeable, but thoroughly outraged over how Mueller and company wanted to change one of the main characteristics of American jurisprudence: innocent until proven guilty.

 
 
 
Colorado Curt
6.2.2  Colorado Curt  replied to  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom @6.2    3 months ago

I also thought that the seed article was puerile and could have been written by a second-year sociology student. I grade it a C-minus.

 
 
 
MrFrost
7  MrFrost    3 months ago

Most of the repubs asked non-sense questions and a few even tried to claim bias. Lesko did exactly that by saying that Mueller didn't reference fox news* as much as other outlets. 

And then of course, the bottom feeders couldn't resist deflecting when all else had failed.

512

 
 
 
Colorado Curt
7.1  Colorado Curt  replied to  MrFrost @7    3 months ago

The term is "nonsense." I disagree. The first question from the Texas Congressman was like a laser missile that shell shocked Robert Mueller, and he never recovered except to say 200 times, "I can't get into that."

 
 
 
cms5
8  cms5    3 months ago
If there’s one truth Americans need to take away from Wednesday's testimony, it’s that Republican politicians’ portrayal of Mueller shows how low many in the party are willing to sink to keep the president in power and a conservative agenda in place. It also prompts a terrifying thought.
Mueller, who wrote nearly   450 pages   about his exhaustive investigation and saw   34 people   charged with crimes as a result of his efforts, did not have ulterior motives in his investigation or findings. GOP politicians are trying to twist your perception of the truth and blur the facts so you don’t quite get the whole story. And that tactic should scare everyone.

Actually, it was apparent that Mueller didn't write the report and that he delegated a good majority of the work to a team that definitely weren't Republican backers, nor did they want to see Trump come out of this without a thousand wounds and bruises.

Mueller isn't new to Washington and he knows what to expect at hearings. He wasn't ready...he didn't want to be there...tried telling everyone that the Report is his testimony. Nadler and Schiff wouldn't listen...they thought that Mueller testifying would be like the movie version of the book and sway those sitting on the impeachment fence into action. That didn't happen.

Nobody tried to 'twist' anything and facts don't 'blur'...the hearing was a dud. If you want someone to blame - look to the Chairman of these two committees.

 
 
 
MrFrost
8.1  MrFrost  replied to  cms5 @8    3 months ago
Nobody tried to 'twist' anything and facts don't 'blur

So then you agree that trump DID obstruct justice? I mean, Mueller said that if donny wasn't the POTUS he would have charged him with a crime. 

 
 
 
cms5
8.1.1  cms5  replied to  MrFrost @8.1    3 months ago

While Mueller might have agreed that he could 'charge' him with obstruction when he left office, proving obstruction beyond a reasonable doubt would be difficult at best.

 
 
 
Karri
8.1.2  Karri  replied to  cms5 @8.1.1    3 months ago

Have you read Vol II?  It's pretty damning.

 
 
 
Texan1211
8.1.3  Texan1211  replied to  Karri @8.1.2    3 months ago

137 House Democrats appear to disagree with you.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
8.1.4  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Texan1211 @8.1.3    3 months ago
137 House Democrats appear to disagree with you.

Not really, they are just making a political calculation on impeachment. They all know Trump did commit obstruction, they're just trying to figure out the best way to get the criminal out of office and with a delinquent Republican Senate, removing him though impeachment is nearly impossible. That means they are left with getting him out in the 2020 election even though they recognize we are being led by the most corrupt President in US history.

 
 
 
Texan1211
8.1.5  Texan1211  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @8.1.4    3 months ago

Whatever gets you through a day, I suppose.

 
 
 
Karri
8.1.6  Karri  replied to  Texan1211 @8.1.3    3 months ago

Actually, they voted against impeaching him over his racist tweets.  (I agree with that; censure would be more appropriate.)

BTW, obstruction of justice was one of the counts against Nixon.  After the "smoking gun" tape was released, even most Republicans wanted him removed from office.  Where are the patriotic Republicans today?  (Don't look to McConnell; he just refuse to bring two bills to the floor -- and these bills dealt with protecting the security of our voting process.)

 
 
 
Texan1211
8.1.7  Texan1211  replied to  Karri @8.1.6    3 months ago

Yeah, because no Democrat has had the courage of their convictions to bring the articles of impeachment up.

 
 
 
cms5
8.1.8  cms5  replied to  Karri @8.1.2    3 months ago
Have you read Vol II?  It's pretty damning.

Yes, I have read the entire vol. Please, tell us all what is so damning in vol II.

 
 
 
Karri
8.1.9  Karri  replied to  cms5 @8.1.8    3 months ago

There were at least ten verifiable incidents where Trump attempted to stop the investigation or lie or ask others to lie.  Fortunately, others were able to talk him out of it or just simply didn't do it. If he had not been President, he would have been indicted.

 
 
 
Heartland American
9  Heartland American    3 months ago

I’d like to take this moment to applaud jrSmiley_81_smiley_image.gif  the GOP members of those committees for how they handled the Mueller testimony and say bravo jrSmiley_13_smiley_image.gif  for their conduct and questions.  Well done. jrSmiley_79_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
freepress
10  freepress    3 months ago

[Deleted]

Trump hired many people who are in jail, pled guilty, and Republicans know there was foreign interference in our elections. The avoidance of dealing with that interference and pretending it never happened tells you they care nothing for the rule of law. 

They all sound like an old re-run of Nancy Grace or present idiotic notions like the cover of an old "National Enquirer" tabloid.

 
 
 
WallyW
10.1  WallyW  replied to  freepress @10    3 months ago

All kidding aside.....

the dems had an awful, horrible, terrible week.

Their attempted coup fell flat.

 
 
 
Tessylo
10.1.1  Tessylo  replied to  WallyW @10.1    3 months ago

Nope. It's the gop and the 'president' who have had a a horrible terrible awful week.

 
 
 
Texan1211
10.1.2  Texan1211  replied to  WallyW @10.1    3 months ago

And yet, some Democrats still think it wasn't a bad week for them

Say, have you heard anything about filing impeachment articles against Trump, or is it all STILL just so much jrSmiley_90_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_90_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_90_smiley_image.gif ?

 
 
 
The Old Breed Marine
11  The Old Breed Marine    3 months ago

I actually feel a little bit sorry for Mueller.

He's old, not entirely lucid, and he was used as a political pawn by the Left, and when he failed them, they decided to throw him under the bus. Their last ditch effort was this sham, made for TV testimony, hoping that somehow, he'd give them some talking points, to continue their ridiculous charade... he didn't.

Instead, he got chewed up, and spit out, by both parties.

Also, now I think we know why he didn't want to testify; He was a figurehead, and was in no real position to speak to his report.

At least, maybe now, they (The Left) will leave him alone and give him some peace.... he's suffered enough.

 
 
 
MrFrost
12  MrFrost    3 months ago

Just as a reminder...

This investigation was started by a republican that was appointed by trump. 

Drop the "it's the dems" bullshit.. 

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online

Wheel
WallyW
Freefaller
Ender
devangelical
Kavika
pat wilson
GregTx
MrFrost
NV-Robin6



CB
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom


62 visitors