Jump to content

Robert S. Mueller III Testimony Before Congress


Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, jrober38 said:

 

His job was to establish if the Russians interfered with the election, and to determine if the Trump campaign conspired with them along the way.

 

Incorrect. 

 

He was tasked with determining if ANYONE (not just Trump) conspired with them along the way. 

 

Which is why it's a ridiculous statement to say he couldn't look into Clinton/Steele/Fusion.

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

Just now, jrober38 said:

 

His job was to establish if the Russians interfered with the election, and to determine if the Trump campaign conspired with them along the way.

 

In investigating those things, they established that Russia did interfere, and during the process it seems as though Trump attempted to obstruct justice multiple times, including a couple attempts at witness tampering. 

 

 

 

You conveniently left out how they also found Trump DID NOT collude with them....in fact rebuked them many times.  

 

And despite Obama allowing this to happen, the FBI did not warn his campaign this was possible.

 

I mean, it's almost like this was a deliberate sham.....and Mueller was the chosen figurehead, someone completely non partisan.  Above it all.  

  • Like (+1) 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Deranged Rhino said:

 

Incorrect. 

 

He was tasked with determining if ANYONE (not just Trump) conspired with them along the way. 

 

Which is why it's a ridiculous statement to say he couldn't look into Clinton/Steele/Fusion.

 

Clinton never conspired with the Russian government.

 

They hired foreign agents to collect dirt on an opponent, which is legal. 

 

Trump's team was offered dirt on an opponent by a foreign agent, and should have told the FBI.

 

I don't get what the difference is, but apparently there is one in the eyes of the law.

 

For the record, I think what both sides did was wrong and unethical. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, jrober38 said:

 

Clinton never conspired with the Russian government.

 

They hired foreign agents to collect dirt on an opponent, which is legal. 

 

Clinton PAID FOR RUSSIAN INTELLIGENCE. 

 

Where do you think Steele got his information from? RUSSIAN INTELLIGENCE OFFICERS. 

 

You're woefully underinformed on this subject. 

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

4 minutes ago, Big Blitz said:

 

 

 

You conveniently left out how they also found Trump DID NOT collude with them....in fact rebuked them many times.  

 

And despite Obama allowing this to happen, the FBI did not warn his campaign this was possible.

 

I mean, it's almost like this was a deliberate sham.....and Mueller was the chosen figurehead, someone completely non partisan.  Above it all.  

 

I've said numerous times in this thread there was no collusion. 

 

I agree it was a sham as well. Ultimately it was a political hit job. 

2 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

Clinton PAID FOR RUSSIAN INTELLIGENCE. 

 

Where do you think Steele got his information from? RUSSIAN INTELLIGENCE OFFICERS. 

 

You're woefully underinformed on this subject. 

 

As the law is written, what Clinton did is legal.

 

They hired an intermediary to collect dirt, and that guy went out and got his dirt, although it seems almost all of it was made up out of thin air. 

 

You seem to be woefully uninformed about how the law works. 

Edited by jrober38
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Turner wants to focus on one word: "exonerated".

 

"Does the AG have the power to exonerate anyone?" (he does not)

"Would you agree with me the AG does not have the power to exonerate?"

 

Mueller: "I'll pass on that."

 

Turner: "Why?"

 

crickets

 

 

EXACTLY

Turner is eviscerating him right now. 

  • Like (+1) 5
  • Awesome! (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Carson asking if it's a national security risk to share private polling data with a foreign adversary...

 

Mueller won't "speculate on those lines".

 

The real question is if it's a national security risk to share private polling date with a US STATE DEPARTMENT ASSET.

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

Wenstrup (R-OH) is up. Asks Mueller "is it accurate to say that no members of the Trump campaign were involved in the theft of (Clinton's) emails?"

 

Mueller hems and haws -- "I don't know".

 

Suddenly Mueller can't follow along :lol: 

13 minutes ago, jrober38 said:

 

 

As the law is written, what Clinton did is legal.

 

They hired an intermediary to collect dirt, and that guy went out and got his dirt, although it seems almost all of it was made up out of thin air. 

 

You seem to be woefully uninformed about how the law works. 

 

You're 100% incorrect. 

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

17 minutes ago, jrober38 said:

 

As the law is written, what Clinton did is legal.

 

They hired an intermediary to collect dirt, and that guy went out and got his dirt, although it seems almost all of it was made up out of thin air. 

 

You seem to be woefully uninformed about how the law works. 

 

Enlighten us.  Start with which part of the USC covers this.  I'll even give you a head start.

 

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text

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

Mueller asked if he knew his personal choice of lead investigator, Andrew Weissman, was an attendee at Hillary's election night planned celebration ? 

 

Mueller states he did not know. I think he's a: 

 

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

8 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

You're 100% incorrect. 

 

Then why haven't they been charged?

 

Trump said it himself - people pay for political dirt all the time, which is true.

 

For whatever reason, if you seek out the dirt, it's legal , but if a foreign government brings you something on their own, it's illegal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, jrober38 said:

 

Then why haven't they been charged?

 

Trump said it himself - people pay for political dirt all the time, which is true.

 

For whatever reason, if you seek out the dirt, it's legal , but if a foreign government brings you something on their own, it's illegal.

 

You're 100% wrong on where the dirt came from, how it was obtained, why it obtained in that matter and how it fits the exact definition of collusion/conspiracy the left has been trying to sink Trump with for three years.

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

The illegality here was not accepting dirt or hiring someone to dig up dirt. It was misrepresenting the dug up dirt as being vetted and using it as the basis to get a warrant and using law enforcement against an opposing campaign.

  • Like (+1) 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, 3rdnlng said:

The illegality here was not accepting dirt or hiring someone to dig up dirt. It was misrepresenting the dug up dirt as being vetted and using it as the basis to get a warrant and using law enforcement against an opposing campaign.

 

(and paying for foreign intelligence services to provide said dirt -- which is illegal for the purposes of subverting a sitting president)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, jrober38 said:

 

Then why haven't they been charged?

 

Trump said it himself - people pay for political dirt all the time, which is true.

 

For whatever reason, if you seek out the dirt, it's legal , but if a foreign government brings you something on their own, it's illegal.

 

Clinton hasn't been charged, so she's not guilty.

 

Trump hasn't been charged, so...?  

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

3 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

Clinton hasn't been charged, so she's not guilty.

 

Trump hasn't been charged, so...?  

 

Woah Woah woah... Don't question assumptions now... Obviously we can assume that if Clinton were guilty she'd be charge, but that Trump hasn't been charged because he's obstructing justice... I mean, that's just simple assumptions, which we know are true. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I got out of a meeting in time to catch the last 15 minutes before the current break. It's getting tough to listen to Mueller struggle.

giphy.gif

Edited by LBSeeBallLBGetBall
  • Like (+1) 1
  • Sad 1
  • Haha (+1) 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

You're 100% wrong on where the dirt came from, how it was obtained, why it obtained in that matter and how it fits the exact definition of collusion/conspiracy the left has been trying to sink Trump with for three years.

 

Feel free to enlighten me then.

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

9 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

Clinton hasn't been charged, so she's not guilty.

 

Trump hasn't been charged, so...?  

 

Trump can't be charged while he's President unless Congress impeaches him.

 

Impeachment is very unpopular in the polls, which is why I think they'll wait until he's no longer President to go after him (I don't agree with this at all, just what I think they'll do). 

Edited by jrober38
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, jrober38 said:

 

Feel free to enlighten me then.

 

I'm not trying to be snippy -- just a lot happening all at once. 

 

When this dies down I will -- but start by reading that document I shared which you said you already knew about but didn't. 

 

https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/icotr/51117/2016_Cert_FISC_Memo_Opin_Order_Apr_2017.pdf

Page 82-85 specifically.

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

2 minutes ago, jrober38 said:

 

Trump can't be charged.

Quit your horseshit. I haven't been responding to you because you are "one of those posters". You subtly twist things and draw people into a long discussion with statements like the above. We know Trump can't be charged as a sitting president. If Mueller thought he was guilty of something there was nothing against him coming right out and saying so.

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

1 minute ago, Tiberius said:

Republicans are not questioning any of Muellers basic conclusions. They are just trying to raise red Harings 

 

How so? 

 

What conclussions do you want them to ask about, and what red harings are they throwing? 

Edited by whatdrought
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...