Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
ExpandMyMind

Mueller Testifies before Congress (Live)

213 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

ExpandMyMind

For anyone who's interested, here's the live broadcast of Mueller's testimony before Congress. It starts at 08.30 EDT, and then again at 12.00 I think it is.

https://www.c-span.org/video/?462628-1/robert-mueller-testifies-house-judiciary-committee

 

Edited by ExpandMyMind
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OverSword

All I want to do is watch my regular local morning news broadcast 

Edited by OverSword
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ScotDeerie
1 minute ago, OverSword said:

I would have 3 questions and that these haven’t been asked shows what dog and pony show this is

  • was there collusion by the campaign to undermine the election?
  • were you fired?
  • since you were not fired was justice obstructed?

So, wait, if I make plans to murder someone but they don't get murdered, then there was no crime? Cool. That'll come in handy.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
skliss

What a waste of time! What's amazing to me is that Mueller seems to not know a lot of stuff even stuff in the report. Also that no one on his team ever saw or reviewed all of the evidence.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
skliss
2 minutes ago, ScotDeerie said:

So, wait, if I make plans to murder someone but they don't get murdered, then there was no crime? Cool. That'll come in handy.

I've heard tons of people in my life say "I'll kill him if he did that!" " I'm gonna kill her if she says that again." "I could just kill that kid." ... should they all be arrested?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OverSword
1 minute ago, ScotDeerie said:

So, wait, if I make plans to murder someone but they don't get murdered, then there was no crime? Cool. That'll come in handy.

Firing someone is not a crime. Now if he had been fired there may be an argument that justice was obstructed unless the investigation continued under a different special counsel, which is moot since it didn’t happen.

murder is illegal and your argument is flawed. But way to quote the party line and not think it through yourself 

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
skliss

Muellers facial expression are so squirrelly!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ScotDeerie
13 minutes ago, skliss said:

I've heard tons of people in my life say "I'll kill him if he did that!" " I'm gonna kill her if she says that again." "I could just kill that kid." ... should they all be arrested?

I don't know. Did they then hire hit men? Withdraw money to pay off operatives?  Discuss plans to proceed with the act?  Buy a gun? Get caught on the way to the person's house with lethal weapons in the car and a manifesto on the front seat? There are degrees to anything and no blanket statement fits all occasions. But I'm sure you realize that, so why the overly simplified question?

 

P.S. And if you want a really neat visit from some G-men, trying saying even the simplest form of "I'll kill you" about the president/other government officials on social media.  There are a couple of cops who just found that out the hard way.

Edited by ScotDeerie
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ScotDeerie
1 minute ago, OverSword said:

Way to defend your argument. 

Mark Twain gave the best advice on this. I bow to his expert knowledge of fools.    Image result for bowing

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OverSword
7 minutes ago, ScotDeerie said:

Mark Twain gave the best advice on this. I bow to his expert knowledge of fools.    Image result for bowing

Quotes Twain without even actually quoting him.  Argues with a picture. Must be a millennial.

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OverSword
13 minutes ago, ScotDeerie said:

I don't know. Did they then hire hit men? Withdraw money to pay off operatives?  Discuss plans to proceed with the act?  Buy a gun? Get caught on the way to the person's house with lethal weapons in the car and a manifesto on the front seat? There are degrees to anything and no blanket statement fits all occasions. But I'm sure you realize that, so why the overly simplified question?

 

P.S. And if you want a really neat visit from some G-men, trying saying even the simplest form of "I'll kill you" about the president/other government officials on social media.  There are a couple of cops who just found that out the hard way.

At some point I assume you’ll start arguing about the actual subject or leave. Am I right?

  • Like 1
  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Robotic Jew

I hate these things and don't think they should be televised. Allow reporters, allow it to be recorded but with it televised it turns into less of a "hearing" and more into a bunch of political grandstanding and attempts to "score points" by everyone involved. He's supposed to be answering questions yet 99.999999% of the time it's just politicians spewing nonsense and seeing how many words they can say before they run out of time and/or breath.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then
1 hour ago, skliss said:

Muellers facial expression are so squirrelly!

He seems like he may have had a stroke at some point.  From what I've seen, he's just accentuating his biased stance.  The guy simply refuses to answer pertinent questions about the role he played in the FISA warrant process.  He won't get to do that if Durham gets him in a witness box.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then
35 minutes ago, Robotic Jew said:

I hate these things and don't think they should be televised. Allow reporters, allow it to be recorded but with it televised it turns into less of a "hearing" and more into a bunch of political grandstanding and attempts to "score points" by everyone involved. He's supposed to be answering questions yet 99.999999% of the time it's just politicians spewing nonsense and seeing how many words they can say before they run out of time and/or breath.

Which was precisely their goal in demanding he come there to be a stage prop.  Nadler had to have his show.  It will amount to more of the nothing the whole investigation has been.  No one's mind will be changed yet the Dems will use it to rally Pelosi to go with Impeachment.  Let them :tu:

  • Like 1
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dumbledore the Awesome

I'm afraid there was something more important I had to do. I'd just done some painting, and I needed to watch it dry. 

  • Like 2
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then
1 hour ago, ScotDeerie said:

Way to ASSume.

As the president, he IS the Executive Branch of our government.  He runs that entire branch and has the authority to hire, with oversight by Congress in many cases, but he has unlimited authority to fire anyone for any reason.  He isn't a bellhop or a rubber stamp for another branch of government.  He is co-equal.  Firing the corrupt idiot Comey was long overdue and the investigation obviously never missed a beat.  It went on for two YEARS.  He wasn't indicted and Mueller made it clear to Barr that this action had nothing to do with the DoJ memo about indicting a sitting president.  All of this prolonged hysteria will most likely ensure his re-election next year.  WELL DONE!

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77
Quote

Asked about if he agreed with the Attorney General William Barr's characterization of his report, Robert Mueller did not directly address the accuracy of Barr's summary

Mueller, however, said he sent a letter "raising issues" on March 27. He added that the "letter speaks for itself."

https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/robert-mueller-congress-testimony/h_e50e6ac6bd7f028250f14cf6d5a56356

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then
Just now, Dumbledore the Awesome said:

I'm afraid there was something more important I had to do. I'd just done some painting, and I needed to watch it dry. 

Oh, come now Dumblee Dore... aren't you enraged and incensed over the blindingly obvious obstruction of a non-prosecutable case?  What a bunch of loser-hacks these Dems are.  I SO hope they lose the majority next year...

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77
Quote

Robert Mueller confirmed that President Trump asked staff to falsify records relevant to the ongoing investigation.

The issue came up during a line of questioning by Democratic Republican Rep. Cedric Richmond.

Here is that exchange:

Richmond: So it's fair to say the President tried to protect himself by asking staff to falsify records relevant to an ongoing investigation?

Mueller: I would say that's generally a summary.

Richmond: Would you say that that action the President tried to hamper the investigation by asking staff to falsify records relevant to your investigation? 

Mueller: I am just going to have to refer you to the report if I could for the review of that episode.

Richmond: Thank you. Also the President's attempt to get McGahn to create a false written record were related to Mr. Trump's concerns were related to President Trump's concerns about your obstruction of justice inquiry, correct?

Mueller: I believe that to be true.

 

Edited by Farmer77
  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ScotDeerie
...when House Democrats asked Mueller whether his report fully exonerated Trump, Mueller simply said “no.” Then they asked Mueller if it’s his view that Trump can be criminally indicted for obstruction of justice once he’s no longer in office. Mueller’s answer: “yes.”
 
OOPS.
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dumbledore the Awesome

so what's the point of that Farmer, since it's your mission to get the Tyrant removed from office and executed? If you have to wait until he's no longer in office, isn't that rather defeating the point of ridding America of the Trump terror and getting a nice Democrat puppet installed? 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Robotic Jew
14 minutes ago, and then said:

Which was precisely their goal in demanding he come there to be a stage prop.  Nadler had to have his show.  It will amount to more of the nothing the whole investigation has been.  No one's mind will be changed yet the Dems will use it to rally Pelosi to go with Impeachment.  Let them :tu:

So far my favorite parts are when the repubs ask what they think is a "SCORE" question and then when not getting the answer they were hoping for they interrupt the man to let him know they have a limited amount of time and need to try to speak for 3 minutes before asking a single question. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then
5 minutes ago, ScotDeerie said:
...when House Democrats asked Mueller whether his report fully exonerated Trump, Mueller simply said “no.” Then they asked Mueller if it’s his view that Trump can be criminally indicted for obstruction of justice once he’s no longer in office. Mueller’s answer: “yes.”
 
OOPS.

Let them.  You can indict a ham sandwich.  Putting it in prison is a tad more difficult.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aztek

can trump be indited after he is no longer a perz????  Hillary says no.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77
1 minute ago, Dumbledore the Awesome said:

so what's the point of that Farmer, since it's your mission to get the Tyrant removed from office and executed? If you have to wait until he's no longer in office, isn't that rather defeating the point of ridding America of the Trump terror and getting a nice Democrat puppet installed? 

At this time in history the point of the hearing really is nothing more than attempting to ensure our nation stays an in tact representative democracy. 

Dont think its working, but when you see all these right wing articles squealing about "why have him testify" that is your answer.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.