Mueller Testifies before Congress (Live)

[Gromdor]

3 minutes ago, Michelle said:

Then why don't we collectively, as a nation, do something about it? I don't understand why it shouldn't be a bipartisan issue?

Well, that's one of biggest problems.  We can't do it as a nation.  Our election system is broken down by state with each state having their own system and laws.  It's why it's kinda crappy but also kinda hard to do election fraud.  An external manipulator would have to break each system individually or break only the ones that matter to influence an election.   Countries like Brazil and Australia have mandatory elections and have no problems conducting it because everyone is registered nation wide.  Ours has everyone registered by state. 

[Michelle]

It's a painstaking process ain't it. And the infighting makes it worse.

[RoofGardener]

18 hours ago, Gromdor said:

Well, we do have a history of removing eligible voters from the rolls without telling them.

As for voter ID.  Some states have a large population of poor that don't even have ID's or the cash and transportation to even get them.  The concept of voter ID is fine, but implementing it while deliberately overlooking this particular issue is a tactic used by the GOP to simply deny people the ability to vote, rather than a sincere attempt at rectifying a hypothetical problem (voter fraud).

I think you may be conflating two entirely different issues there @Gromdor ? 

One is the issue of ID. I'm sorry, but it seems unlikely to me that anyone would be unable to afford an ID ? I mean.. they must have SOME sort of ID to claim benefits, for example ? 

As for removing voters from the rolls; it seems reasonable to have purges of the register if it contains incomplete or 'suspect' data. People move around all the time. In the UK you can only vote if you have an address in the ward in question, and your name is linked to that address. 

In the UK, everyone gets a voting card posted to their registered address a few weeks before each election (national or local). I assume a similar thing happens in the USA ? If somebody does NOT get the card, then they know there is a problem, and they need to speak with their registrar to check that they are still on the register ? 

I remember a year ago there was a youtube video about this issue. Some congresswoman had suggested that requiring ID to a polling station was prejudiced against black people, as these people are "less likely" to have ID. So the video-makers went and interviewed black people on the street. None of them had any issues with getting ID, and they all expressed astonishment that anyone would think this WOULD be a problem for black people. I'll try and dig it up again. Mind you... it was hardly a scientific representative sample. 

There is a conspiracy theory floating around that Democrats WAN'T illegal's to vote, as they are more likely to vote Democrat than Republican. Watching all this seemingly irrational hatred of the idea of voter ID coming from the Democrats, I sometimes wonder whether there could be truth to it ? 

 

Edited July 29, 2019 by RoofGardener

[Farmer77]

58 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

There is a conspiracy theory floating around that Democrats WAN'T illegal's to vote, as they are more likely to vote Democrat than Republican. Watching all this seemingly irrational hatred of the idea of voter ID coming from the Democrats, I sometimes wonder whether there could be truth to it ? 

 

IM positive that on some level there is some truth to it for a politician or two, although there shouldnt be. With the religious background of the majority of immigrants theres no reason (aside from the whole raging xenophobia thing) that the GOP couldnt shore up those same votes.

That being said I dont believe that is the driving motivator for the majority, this is :

I’ve Worked in Republican Politics. The Party’s Voter Suppression in the Midterms Has Been a Disgrace

Jamil Smith: How Can African Americans Escape the ‘Plantation’ If We Can’t Vote?

and this

Florida House passes bill that makes it harder for ex-felons to vote

 

 

[RoofGardener]

25 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

IM positive that on some level there is some truth to it for a politician or two, although there shouldnt be. With the religious background of the majority of immigrants theres no reason (aside from the whole raging xenophobia thing) that the GOP couldnt shore up those same votes.

That being said I dont believe that is the driving motivator for the majority, this is :

I’ve Worked in Republican Politics. The Party’s Voter Suppression in the Midterms Has Been a Disgrace

Jamil Smith: How Can African Americans Escape the ‘Plantation’ If We Can’t Vote?

and this

Florida House passes bill that makes it harder for ex-felons to vote

 

 

Most interesting @Farmer77 - thanks for posting that. 

It is true that long-term immigrants tend not to religiously (if you'll pardon the expression) vote Democrat, but the recently arrived - including illegals - do, giving the Democrats a temporary advantage. Of course, it's a kind of pyramid scheme... if they let in MORE illegals (and allow them to vote) NEXT year, then their advantage continues, and so on until the entirety of South American and Africa is in the United States. 

Your first quote seemed to be referring to shambolic procedures at the polling stations themselves, with broken (or incomplete) voting machines in  Georgia. Well, I would imagine this would impact ALL voters, not just poor or disadvantaged voters, or Democrat voters. I'd hardly call this evidence of "vote suppression". Feeble and inept management, yes, but not suppression. (or at least, not politically prejudiced suppression). Still, there should be a congressional investigation into all of these complaints, and the people responsible demoted, sacked, or whipped ! 

The second quote is interesting. It starts off with a racially-charged headline ("plantation"). but it makes a lot of uncorroborated allegations and "bait and switch" debating tactics. They say that changes to election law disadvantage "black voters", but it really means it disadvantages people who aren't registered to vote. (although the bit about having to walk 10 miles to a polling booth is interesting, and worthy of a minor riot ! ). The question should then be: why are so many black people not registering to vote ? Being black or being poor is no excuse. If you VALUE your vote, then you should darned well arrange to register and vote. 

As for the third item; that is interesting. In essence, a felon has to fully discharge his "debt to society" by fulfilling his prison term, any probation requirements, and pay any fines . I've got mixed feelings about that. You COULD argue that until the fines have been paid, the felon hasn't discharged his obligations to society, and hence shouldn't have the right to partake in decisions that RELATE to that society. (e.g. voting for representatives). 

All in all, I'm not convinced @Farmer77. The electoral role needs to be kept up to date, and to ensure that fraud is minimised. In any large endeavour, there are BOUND to be 'innocents' that are caught up in that net. But it must be done, otherwise it is a betrayal of the people who are ENTITLED to vote. 

 

Edited July 29, 2019 by RoofGardener

[Farmer77]

9 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

All in all, I'm not convinced @Farmer77. The electoral role needs to be kept up to date, and to ensure that fraud is minimised. In any large endeavour, there are BOUND to be 'innocents' that are caught up in that net. But it must be done, otherwise it is a betrayal of the people who are ENTITLED to vote

The thing roofie is EVERYONE agrees with this. EVERYONE. There may be disagreements about how to get there but the framing of the dems as the party of election lawlessness , while being absolutely brilliant and effective propaganda that after a decade or so of repeating like a mantra is working, is complete bull****.

Which really takes me back to looking at the big picture ,the danger of such hyperbole and propaganda, and questioning what the overall goal of behaving in such a dangerous manner is.

 

Edited July 29, 2019 by Farmer77

[Farmer77]

@RoofGardener

Its also a little difficult to take the GOP seriously regarding election security when they keep refusing to ya know, secure the elections

 

McConnell Dubbed 'Moscow Mitch' for Blocking Debate on Election Security Bill Just As Senate Report Details 2016 Russian Interference

Edited July 29, 2019 by Farmer77

[Farmer77]

That isn’t what he said!’ Fox News host laughs in Mick Mulvaney’s face as he brazenly lies about Mueller’s testimony

Quote

“Mueller answered the single, one oustanding question,” Mulvaney said. “They asked him: Would you have indicted the president if he were not the president, and Mueller said, ‘absolutely not.’ He would not do that.”

“No, no, no — that’s not what he said,” Wallace said, rightly correcting Mulvaney.

“He did!” Mulvaney interjected, lying, again.

“No, that isn’t what he said!” Wallace continued. “He said: We didn’t, because of the OLC — the Office of Legal Counsel guidelines — he said we didn’t even make a decision on that.”

But Mulvaney kept digging in to his obvious distortion of the testimony.

“I actually just think you’re wrong on that,” Mulvaney said. “If they could have indicted him —”

“The record will show what it shows. I promise you’re wrong,” Wallace responded, laughing at Mulvaney’s bogus defense.

 

My first thought was "good job Wallace"! The more I thought about it though thats bull****. Mulvaney wasnt "wrong", wrong implies there is some sort of misunderstanding, Mulvaney was blatantly lying.

When someone, regardless of position,  blatantly lies about something that happened under oath on multiple national TV networks, the press is abdicating their duty by not challenging such things as the lies they are.

 

[RoofGardener]

3 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

That isn’t what he said!’ Fox News host laughs in Mick Mulvaney’s face as he brazenly lies about Mueller’s testimony

 

My first thought was "good job Wallace"! The more I thought about it though thats bull****. Mulvaney wasnt "wrong", wrong implies there is some sort of misunderstanding, Mulvaney was blatantly lying.

When someone, regardless of position,  blatantly lies about something that happened under oath on multiple national TV networks, the press is abdicating their duty by not challenging such things as the lies they are.

 

And yet - curiously - Mueler subsequently publically disavowed the OLC thing, and stated that his decision NOT to prosecute Trump was NOT based on the whole "you can't indict a sitting president" thing. So Mulvaney may have been wrong at the time he said those words , but he was subsequently proven right. 

Perhaps he's psychic ? 

[Farmer77]

1 minute ago, RoofGardener said:

And yet - curiously - Mueler subsequently publically disavowed the OLC thing, and stated that his decision NOT to prosecute Trump was NOT based on the whole "you can't indict a sitting president" thing. So Mulvaney may have been wrong at the time he said those words , but he was subsequently proven right. 

Perhaps he's psychic ? 

Man you are so fast to defend your side that you dont even read the text anymore Tucker?

Quote

“They asked him: Would you have indicted the president if he were not the president, and Mueller said, ‘absolutely not.’ He would not do that.”

That is the lie

Edited July 29, 2019 by Farmer77

[RoofGardener]

17 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

Man you are so fast to defend your side that you dont even read the text anymore Tucker?

That is the lie

Yes but... no but.. yes but.. no but... Oh  OK then

[+DieChecker]

Here is what I read.

Quote

"I believe a reasonable person looking at these facts could conclude that all three elements of the crime of obstruction of justice have been met, and I'd like to ask you the reason, again, you did not indict Donald Trump is because of the OLC (the DOJ's Office of Legal Counsel) opinion stating that you cannot indict a sitting president, correct?" Lieu asked.

"That is correct," Mueller asked.

Quote

In Mueller's opening statement that came later before the House Intelligence Committee, the former special counsel said he wanted to "correct the record" on his exchange with Lieu.

"That's not the correct way to say it," Mueller said. "We did not reach a determination as to whether the president committed a crime."

That statement was more in line with his report, and with his earlier opening statement to the Judiciary Committee, where he said, "Based on Justice Department policy and principles of fairness, we decided we would not make a determination as to whether the President committed a crime. That was our decision then and it remains our decision today."

So, NO, Mueller did not actually say the OLC was the reason. He walked his previous statement back to they made no decisions. 

[Kismit]

3 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

Here is what I read.

So, NO, Mueller did not actually say the OLC was the reason. He walked his previous statement back to they made no decisions. 

The OLC decision was the reason they did not indict Donald Trump, a year unsuccessfully  trying to get him to answer questions followed by a submission of written answers consisting of 2/3 “I don’t recall” and similar means the evidence requirements could not be fulfilled to a legal standard. 

Nobody has a full picture until after the sitting President is out of office. 

If it was a Democratic con he will walk away free.

 If it was conspiracy, he will be indicted upon leaving office. 

Lets wait and see. I most certainly will admit to being wrong and the Democratic con if absolutely nothing comes from all of this.