Mueller Testifies before Congress (Live)

[Robotic Jew]

2 minutes ago, and then said:

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

not really. i've gotten into prison with quite a few ham sandwiches in my day. hell, on tuesdays they brought them in in cases!

[+OverSword]

Complete waste of time.  One side will always say "No collusion" and the other side will always say "Obstruction of justice".  Nobodies mind will be changed and no new revelations will occur.  In the meantime bridges and power grids across the nation crumble into obscure rusted mounds, big data laws don't keep pace with big data's activities and people still go broke if they have a catastrophic illness.  Way to go congress people and senators.  You should all be thrown in a furnace.

[ScotDeerie]

1 minute ago, Robotic Jew said:

not really. i've gotten into prison with quite a few ham sandwiches in my day. hell, on tuesdays they brought them in in cases!

It's the damn pickles that screw things up. They ALWAYS sniff out the pickles......er... so to speak.

[Farmer77]

1 minute ago, OverSword said:

  In the meantime bridges and power grids across the nation crumble into obscure rusted mounds, big data laws don't keep pace with big data's activities and people still go broke if they have a catastrophic illness.  Way to go congress people and senators.  You should all be thrown in a furnace.

Trump walked away from infrastructure negotiations before they really began

Seems like it isnt the congress people and senators who couldnt do both at the same time.

[+OverSword]

16 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

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.

Please note, this man is a lawyer and never once says the word yes to these questions.  That is more telling than what he did say, and what he did say had the desired effect on those who think what he said was yes. 

Edited July 24, 2019 by OverSword

[Doc Socks Junior]

The opinion of a prosecutor on exoneration is pointless.  Judging guilt or innocence isn't the job of a prosecutor.

[Farmer77]

Quote

President Trump has said repeatedly that Robert Mueller interviewed for the FBI director job just before he was appointed as special counsel in May 2017.

Mueller provided more context about that conversation, from his point of view, under tough questioning from GOP Rep. Greg Steube.

Mueller said he was asked by the President for input about on the post, but said he was not interviewing for the job itself.

Here's the exchange:

Mueller: My understanding, I was not applying for the job. I was asked to give my input about what it would take to do the job, which, triggered the interview you are talking about.

Steube: So you don't recall on May 16, 2017 that you interviewed with the President, regarding the FBI Director job?

Mueller: I interviewed with the President and it was about the job but not about me applying for the job.

Steube: So your statement here today is that you didn't interview to apply for the FBI director job?

Mueller: That's correct.

 

 

[Farmer77]

Just now, OverSword said:

Please note, this man is a lawyer and never once says the word yes to these questions.  That is more telling than what he did say, and what he did say had the desired effect on those who think what he said was yes. 

LOL it all comes down to the meaning of is huh

He's giving the most generic answers possible.

[Vorg]

"Mr Mueller, the FISA warrant was found to have been unlawful and was the basis for your investigation, therefore in your opinion was the investigation lawful and can one be charged with "obstruction" based on an unlawful investigation to start with?"

"Mr Speaker! I ask that that question be removed from the record!"

[Farmer77]

Quote

Mueller said a president can fire the FBI director. But there's a catch.

From CNN's Elie Honig

Asked if under Article 2 of the Constitution, a US president can fire the FBI director, former Special Counsel Robert Mueller responded yes.

But there is an important legal distinction here: A president certainly has the power under Article 2 to fire the FBI Director, but not necessarily to fire the FBI Director without any legal consequence.

By way of comparison, a President indisputably has the Constitutional authority to issue pardons, but it would be a crime to exercise that Constitutional power in an illegal manner — for example, by issuing a pardon in exchange for a bribe. 

Similarly, while a president has the power to fire the FBI director, it is a crime to do so for criminal purposes, including to obstruct justice.

 

[+OverSword]

6 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

Trump walked away from infrastructure negotiations before they really began

Seems like it isnt the congress people and senators who couldnt do both at the same time.

Have they passed  and given him something to sign?  This is not up tp the president, they don't need to negotiate dick and the fact that they pretend that they do and people fall for it says something about our collective political IQ.  Remember the schoolhouse rock, I'm just a bill?  Maybe we should start broadcasting those info-cartoons from the 70's during Big Brother, Americas got talent and the bachelor.

[+and-then]

2 minutes ago, Doc Socks Junior said:

The opinion of a prosecutor on exoneration is pointless.  Judging guilt or innocence isn't the job of a prosecutor.

The job of a special counsel/prosecutor is to compile evidence of a CRIME, sufficient to bring an indictment.  Failing to meet that standard, no public airing of testimony against the innocent should be allowed.  That's all he did in the second half of the report.  He's a feckin shill and is playing to his base in the Dem House.  The fact that he refuses to answer any questions about FISA or the reliance on the Dossier proves it beyond any doubt.  That's okay...Barr and Durham may have something to say yet.

[Farmer77]

1 minute ago, OverSword said:

Have they passed  and given him something to sign?  This is not up tp the president, they don't need to negotiate dick and the fact that they pretend that they do and people fall for it says something about our collective political IQ.  Remember the schoolhouse rock, I'm just a bill?  Maybe we should start broadcasting those info-cartoons from the 70's during Big Brother, Americas got talent and the bachelor.

Thats kinda naive in 21st century America. We have multiple examples of McConnell refusing to bring a bill to a vote because he knew the POTUS wouldnt support it. The sycophancy is really really unhealthy and doesnt allow America to operate as you describe above.

Edited July 24, 2019 by Farmer77

[Robotic Jew]

Just wanted to add that my 2nd favorite part of this process is obviously the democrats using the first few minutes of their time to kiss Muellers booty. 

[+OverSword]

Just now, Farmer77 said:

A president certainly has the power under Article 2 to fire the FBI Director, but not necessarily to fire the FBI Director without any legal consequence.

I wonder if it says that or that is what he believes?  After all, in our nation anyone can sue anyone for anything.  Please remember, he's a lawyer and is not answering clearly and decisively for a reason. The reason is because he's doing his best to say nothing.

[+and-then]

Just now, OverSword said:

The reason is because he's doing his best to say nothing.

He knows quite well that his ass may yet be in the fire.  

[ScotDeerie]

7 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

LOL it all comes down to the meaning of is huh

He's giving the most generic answers possible.

Funny. I heard Mr. Mueller say a big ol' YES.  

“Could you charge the president with a crime after he left office?” Republican representative Ken Buck asked Mueller during the latter’s appearance before the House Judiciary Committee.

“Yes,” Mueller responded simply.

[Farmer77]

3 minutes ago, OverSword said:

I wonder if it says that or that is what he believes?  After all, in our nation anyone can sue anyone for anything.  Please remember, he's a lawyer and is not answering clearly and decisively for a reason. The reason is because he's doing his best to say nothing.

Thats what he believes. IMO we need to tighten up the verbiage in article 2 BADLY.

The way i understand executive power, as understood by the founders, is that POTUS has the power to execute the will of congress.

The way some, including our current POTUS, read it is executive - as in CEO type power.

https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/articles/article-ii

Edited July 24, 2019 by Farmer77

[ExpandMyMind]

28 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.

To be accurate, if I remember correctly it was whether a 'President' can be indicted for obstruction after leaving office, not Trump specifically.

[ScotDeerie]

1 minute ago, ExpandMyMind said:

To be accurate, if I remember correctly it was whether a 'President' can be indicted for obstruction after leaving office, not Trump specifically.

What president do you imagine they were discussing?

[+and-then]

Just now, ScotDeerie said:

Funny. I heard Mr. Mueller say a big ol' YES.  

“Could you charge the president with a crime after he left office?” Republican representative Ken Buck asked Mueller during the latter’s appearance before the House Judiciary Committee.

“Yes,” Mueller responded simply.

You have a little trouble with the whole "charging" versus "convicting" thingy, yeah?    If they want to charge him when he finishes up in 2020 or 2025, so be it.  It doesn't mean the man will suffer any serious consequences.  There would a LOT of outrage if he was imprisoned for raising hell about being falsely accused.  ANY innocent person would raise hell in those circumstances.  This stuff stops being funny when it starts being YOU.

[+and-then]

3 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

IMO we need to tighten up the verbiage in article 2 BADLY.

Fortunately, there's an app for that.  It's known as the Amendment process.  

[+OverSword]

5 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

Thats kinda naive in 21st century America. We have multiple examples of McConnell refusing to bring a bill to a vote because he knew the POTUS wouldnt support it. The sycophancy is really really unhealthy and doesnt allow America to operate as you describe above.

And if they pass something that the president won't sign then they can say we passed it, he wouldn't sign it.  Usually if they can pass something without a supermajority, which there is not one now, the president will sign it.

[ExpandMyMind]

14 minutes ago, OverSword said:

Please note, this man is a lawyer and never once says the word yes to these questions.  That is more telling than what he did say, and what he did say had the desired effect on those who think what he said was yes. 

Ted Lieu's was the most important one I saw before I stopped watching. He started by getting Mueller to confirm the three parts that make up obstruction, then walked Mueller through an example from his report, going through each of the three parts and asking Mueller whether they met the criteria. Mueller confirmed each one met the criteria.

[Farmer77]

1 minute ago, OverSword said:

And if they pass something that the president won't sign then they can say we passed it, he wouldn't sign it.  Usually if they can pass something without a supermajority, which there is not one now, the president will sign it.

But they wont. Thats the point. They dont want a win for the American people if it means making the dear leader look bad. Our nation does not currently operate like the cartoons you referenced told us it should. 

Edited July 24, 2019 by Farmer77