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

and then

Well, it's an amazingly breezy, COOLER day here today so I'm off to do some mowing.  Have fun, guys.  I'll be back...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
South Alabam
10 minutes ago, and then said:

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.

It's like trying to bring a big case to the court, and the warrant was invalid the whole time. It is thrown out. And we'll see.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OverSword
Just now, Farmer77 said:

Our nation does not currently operate like the cartoons you referenced told us it should. 

Because winning and keeping power is more important to them than their actual job, not because our laws have changed and doesn't work like that.   Right?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77
Just now, OverSword said:

Because winning and keeping power is more important to them than their actual job, not because our laws have changed and doesn't work like that.   Right?

Correct however it certainly isnt the congress people you were bemoaning earlier, the ones who called for the Mueller testimony, causing the problem IN THIS PARTICULAR CONVERSATION. Not yelling at you just thought by making it big we could avoid large scale whataboutism.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doc Socks Junior
10 minutes ago, and then said:

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.

I think Mueller likely believed, in his judgment as a prosecutor, that the evidence in the second half of the report was sufficient to impeach.  I'm not saying it is, but I believe that is why he laid it all out.  Of course, the Dems don't have the stones to do it.  Probably good political instinct on their part.  It likely wouldn't end well for them.

Honestly, I'd rather have everything in the report out in the open.  Makes it clear just how flimsy it all is.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aztek

Image result for more nothing burger meme

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OverSword
2 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

Correct however it certainly isnt the congress people you were bemoaning earlier, the ones who called for the Mueller testimony, causing the problem IN THIS PARTICULAR CONVERSATION. Not yelling at you just thought by making it big we could avoid large scale whataboutism.

But what about?  JK. Yeah, I don't make excuses for them because none of the people that represent my party are there.  Joining a third party is a good way to feel superior sometimes :D

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ExpandMyMind
19 minutes ago, ScotDeerie said:

What president do you imagine they were discussing?

The point I was making was that Mueller wasn't confirming that Trump's actions - specifically - would warrant his indictment after leaving office, which is how it has been portrayed. He was simply confirming a hypothetical: that while a President cannot be indicted while in office, the terminology in the DOJ memo is 'sitting President', therefore they can be indicted after leaving office.

In other words, he didn't confirm that the DOJ would be prosecuting Trump after his Presidency, only that hypothetically they could.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ExpandMyMind
58 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

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.

I'm not sure how anyone can read this and disagree with the assessment that it's obstruction. It's directing someone to falsify records to mislead an investigation. That's obstruction 101.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OverSword
30 minutes ago, 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.

Related to this investigation (crickets)

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

What president do you imagine they were discussing?

When you're talking to a lawyer about it and they say a president and not the name trump then they are talking generalizations.  When listening to lawyers testify you have to be verrryyyy careful about specifically nailing down what they say.  If it's vague in any way then they just said nothing.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ExpandMyMind

So it looks like this is going to be the major soundbite to come from these hearings (so far):

Robert Mueller States He Could Not Indict President Donald Trump Because Of OLC Decision | NBC News

He basically says that the reason he did not 'indict' (not just did not 'make a judgement' on) President trump was because of the DOJ policy.

However, I honestly think that Mueller just slipped here, since it goes against all of his previous answers and his general stance before and during the hearings. I think he either understood the question as 'did not make a prosecutorial judgement' or simply let the truth slip through by accident, probably through fatigue, by directly answering the question.

Either way, it's pretty major. That soundbite alone will probably lead to impeachment proceedings.

Edited by ExpandMyMind
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ExpandMyMind

Another important point to come out of the testimony was that Barr committed perjury. Barr testified, under oath, that Mueller not making a judgement had nothing to do with the DOJ policy. Mueller stated explicitly that this was the specific reason no judgement was made.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hammerclaw
3 minutes ago, ExpandMyMind said:

So it looks like this is going to be the major soundbite to come from these hearings (so far):

Robert Mueller States He Could Not Indict President Donald Trump Because Of OLC Decision | NBC News

He basically says that the reason he did not 'indict' (not just did not 'make a judgement' on) President trump was because of the DOJ policy.

However, I honestly think that Mueller just slipped here, since it goes against all of his previous answers and his general stance before and during the hearings. I think he either understood the question as 'did not make a prosecutorial judgement' or simply let the truth slip through by accident, probably through fatigue, by directly answering the question.

Either way, it's pretty major. That soundbite alone will probably lead to impeachment proceedings.

Probably it won't. Pelosi will block any Impeachment attempt doomed to failure in the Senate. At this point, the House Democrats can't afford to be portrayed any more stupid than they already are. It could very well cost them the House Majority and the Presidency. It's too close to the election for futile feel-good political grandstanding. 

Political Cartoons by Bob Gorrell

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Robotic Jew
49 minutes ago, Doc Socks Junior said:

I think Mueller likely believed, in his judgment as a prosecutor, that the evidence in the second half of the report was sufficient to impeach.  I'm not saying it is, but I believe that is why he laid it all out.  Of course, the Dems don't have the stones to do it.  Probably good political instinct on their part.  It likely wouldn't end well for them.

Honestly, I'd rather have everything in the report out in the open.  Makes it clear just how flimsy it all is.

It's NOT flimsy though. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hammerclaw

This is a campaign year, leading up to next years Presidential Election. There's no way the Senate Republicans will facilitate the Impeachment of their own President based on the rehashing of old news thus far seen. The Mueller Charade epitomizes the phrase, "full of sound and fury, signifying nothing", quite succinctly in it's current venue.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ExpandMyMind
9 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

Probably it won't. Pelosi will block any Impeachment attempt doomed to failure in the Senate. At this point, the House Democrats can't afford to be portrayed any more stupid than they already are. It could very well cost them the House Majority and the Presidency. It's too close to the election for futile feel-good political grandstanding. 

This assumes that the plan is for it to convince the Senate, or even for it to result in a vote in the House. What I think they are planning on doing is dragging it out. The impeachment process will result in testimony after testimony in an environment that removes the possibility of those testifying refusing to do so, which is what we've seen over the past few months where people have been outright refusing to answer questions. The whole objective of doing so would be to influence public opinion, not to actually impeach.

Of course you and others could definitely be right, and Pelosi could have no intention of impeaching in any way. Time will tell.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RAyMO
27 minutes ago, ExpandMyMind said:

However, I honestly think that Mueller just slipped here,

you were right - Mueller has corrected himself saying that the OLC policy in fact prevented him from making a determination on whether Trump should be charged

Edited by RAyMO
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ExpandMyMind
3 minutes ago, RAyMO said:

you were right - Mueller has corrected himself saying that the OLC policy in fact prevented him from making a determination on whether Trump should be charged

When did he do that? The end of the video he sort of backtracks a bit, but not with specific reference to that 'indict' terminology. Was that in his opening statement to the Intelligence Committee? I missed that part.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RAyMO
3 minutes ago, ExpandMyMind said:

When did he do that? The end of the video he sort of backtracks a bit, but not with specific reference to that 'indict' terminology. Was that in his opening statement to the Intelligence Committee? I missed that part.

Mueller opened his appearance before the House intelligence committee by correcting his earlier comments to Democratic representative Ted Lieu.

While testfiying before the House judiciary committee this morning, Mueller seemed to imply that he would have charged Trump if he were not a sitting president. A longstanding policy from the Office of Legal Counsel warns against indicting sitting presidents.

Lieu asked Mueller this morning, “The reason you did not indict Donald Trump... is because of the OLC decision. Is that correct?” Mueller replied, “That is correct.”

But Mueller corrected himself before the intelligence committee. He said that the OLC policy in fact prevented him from making a determination on whether Trump should be charged.

That correction is sure to disappoint pro-impeachment Democrats, given that the moment was widely shared on social media and considered by many to be a boost to their cause.

source

He did not retract that he could be indicted post serving as president.

Edited by RAyMO
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doc Socks Junior
25 minutes ago, Robotic Jew said:

It's NOT flimsy though. 

Okay, then the Dems should impeach.  What are they waiting for?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doc Socks Junior
1 hour ago, ExpandMyMind said:

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.

And then Mueller said...

"My going through the elements with you does not mean that I subscribe with what you're trying to prove by those elements."

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77
4 minutes ago, Doc Socks Junior said:

Okay, then the Dems should impeach.  What are they waiting for?

The GOP to decide that a POTUS ordering his staff to falsify records in order to impede an investigation is wrong.

 

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OverSword
6 minutes ago, Doc Socks Junior said:

Okay, then the Dems should impeach.  What are they waiting for?

They don't trust the republicans to honestly hear out an impeachment and vote based on evidence rather than party line.  Without republicans contributing in a guilty vote they don't have the numbers to successfully carry out  impeachment.  We should probably all thank them for not wasting yet more of our time if they do not impeach.

Edited by OverSword
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77
2 minutes ago, OverSword said:

They don't trust the republicans to honestly hear out an impeachment and vote based on evidence rather than party line.  Without republicans contributing in a guilty vote they don't have the numbers to successfully carry out  impeachment.  We should probably all thank them for not wasting yet more of our time if they do not impeach.

You said it much better than I did.

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.