Jump to content

Robert S. Mueller III Testimony Before Congress


Recommended Posts

Just now, Tiberius said:

At least OJ wasn't a traitor. A fifth columnist against our democracy. 

Hilarious! Actually we don’t really know whether OJ was or is a traitor. He’s never been investigated. For purposes of discussion we’ll assume he’s not. But....we do now know that Trump isn’t one. Irony is a concept that’s completely lost on you. 

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, jrober38 said:

 

I'm talking about OJ Simpson.

 

Sure, you enter a courtroom with the presumption of innocence, but a jury's decision to convict someone comes down to whether prosecutors present enough evidence to determine that they are guilty. In the event they don't meet that threshold, you leave the courtroom "not guilty". 

 

Also, Mueller never said there wasn't enough evidence against Trump. He did say that if he felt Trump didn't commit any crimes, he'd have said so, but he never said that. 

So in Rober world you’d have people forever labeled as having been accused of things that they were never convicted of? Nice! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, jrober38 said:

Also, Mueller never said there wasn't enough evidence against Trump. He did say that if he felt Trump didn't commit any crimes, he'd have said so, but he never said that. 

 

That's not how it works. 

 

And Mueller knows that. 

 

*****************************************************

Nadler leads off saying Mueller's indictments spoke for him... 

 

And not a single indictment was about collusion or obstruction or the 2016 campaign. Not one. 

 

 

Edited by Deranged Rhino
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, SoCal Deek said:

So in Rober world you’d have people forever labeled as having been accused of things that they were never convicted of? Nice! 

 

Not necessarily. I think the court of public opinion makes decisions on a case by case basis.

 

OJ is widely believed to have committed a brutal double homicide. I can live with him having been labelled a murder, even though a jury didn't convict him. 

2 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

That's not how it works. 

 

And Mueller knows that. 

 

*****************************************************

Nadler leads off saying Mueller's indictments spoke for him... 

 

And not a single indictment was about collusion or obstruction or the 2016 campaign. Not one. 

 

 

 

Mueller said that he wasn't allowed to indict a sitting President in his report.

 

He's left the entire thing up to Congress, and they haven't done anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, jrober38 said:

 

Not necessarily. I think the court of public opinion makes decisions on a case by case basis.

Social Media has turned the Court of Public Opinion into a three ring circus. You’d better pray you’re never accused of something or your life will be forever ruined.

1 minute ago, Tiberius said:

It won't change any minds, I agree. 

Hey! We actually agree on something. ? I knew we’d find common ground. So can we work on fixing the roads now?

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To summarize his opening statement.

 

1. The Russians systematically interfered with the election.

 

2. The Trump campaign did not collude with the Russians. 

 

3. The Trump White House may have obstructed justice. It's on Congress to establish that conclusively.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, jrober38 said:

To summarize his opening statement.

 

1. The Russians systematically interfered with the election.

 

2. The Trump campaign did not collude with the Russians. 

 

3. The Trump White House may have obstructed justice. It's on Congress to establish that conclusively.

 

/ "I won't talk about anything that matters because I can't" (like the origin or the Steele dossier)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Deranged Rhino said:

 

Mueller says he can't talk about the origin of the probe or the Steele Dossier today... 

 

:lol: 

 

No.... don't want to talk about the ACTUAL issues. Because this is a show.

 

Unreal.

 

So he can't comment on some issues that occurred a few months before he was appointed SC, but had no problem indicting people for unrelated crimes that occurred years before he was appointed SC.

  • Like (+1) 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, jrober38 said:

To summarize his opening statement.

 

1. The Russians systematically interfered with the election.

 

2. The Trump campaign did not collude with the Russians. 

 

3. The Trump White House may have obstructed justice. It's on Congress to establish that conclusively.

2. Yes they did, obstruction of justice hid the truth

  • Haha (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No 

Just now, Deranged Rhino said:

 

Nadler starts off with Obstruction... not collusion/conspiracy. 

 

This after three years of saying there was evidence of both. :lol: 

This is the judiciary committee, intelligence is the second hearing, its backwards, which is dumb 

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...