B-Man Posted July 24, 2019 Share Posted July 24, 2019 LOL, Ms Scanlon is speaking s l o w l y and c a r e f u l l y as if she were talking to a three year old. Steube: You’ve testified you weren’t fired & were allowed to complete investigation Mueller: I’m not going to speak anymore to that I can't imagine what his Senate testimony is going to be like. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4merper4mer Posted July 24, 2019 Share Posted July 24, 2019 I have as much or more respect for old people than anyone but let's be honest: they are easily manipulated and can be propped up as figureheads while being controlled by Andrew Weissman and others. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted July 24, 2019 Share Posted July 24, 2019 ? At this point, some GOP congressman should ask Mueller, “Have you ever read the Mueller report?” At the end of Armstrong’s questioning, Mueller appeared to look directly at Nadler to “make it stop”. . 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted July 24, 2019 Share Posted July 24, 2019 6 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: Now they're back to trying to conflate WikiLeaks with Russian intelligence. WikiLeaks does NOT = Russian intelligence. Never has. They think we're stupid. Judging by the responses, they are right. This is not going to end well. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dubs Posted July 24, 2019 Share Posted July 24, 2019 32 minutes ago, jrober38 said: What? Mueller has said numerous times that Trump has not been exonerated. Tiberius has not been exonerated in the Seth Rich murder. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GaryPinC Posted July 24, 2019 Share Posted July 24, 2019 11 minutes ago, Buftex said: Demings: "Lies by Trump campaign officials and administration officials impeded your investigation." Mueller: "I would generally agree with that." Then why hasn't he charged them? They're not Trump and if convicted would set up impeachment or future indictment of Trump. 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whatdrought Posted July 24, 2019 Share Posted July 24, 2019 *Slurrrrrrrpppppp* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted July 24, 2019 Share Posted July 24, 2019 16 minutes ago, jrober38 said: Right. But that's not Mueller's job. This isn't complicated. What do you think Mueller's job was? I mean, the DoJ policy predated Mueller's investigation. It was in place before he started. So if it was somehow his job to get a criminal indictment against the President, it was known at his appointment that he'd never succeed. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted July 24, 2019 Share Posted July 24, 2019 The former judge, Representative Ratcliffe concluded: “I agree with Chairman Nadler this morning when he said Donald Trump is not above the law. But he damn sure should not be below the law which is where Volume II of this report puts him.” Rep. Ratcliffe In a totally new line of attack, Rep Sylvia Garcia is reading what Mueller wrote, then asking him if that was in what he wrote. . 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted July 24, 2019 Share Posted July 24, 2019 20 minutes ago, whatdrought said: I'm playing catch up on this thread, but I just wanted to drop a line and say What the Literal hell? Come. On. You have to see how stupid that sounds. I'm very familiar with most of my assumptions, to be honest. 9 minutes ago, GaryPinC said: Then why hasn't he charged them? They're not Trump and if convicted would set up impeachment or future indictment of Trump. Don't forget: it's already been claimed, months back, that "defending yourself" is "obstruction of justice." 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GaryPinC Posted July 24, 2019 Share Posted July 24, 2019 (edited) Any lawyers here able to provide perspective? Looking very basically at the US code, specifically 1503 and 1505 of Title 18, to be guilty of attempted obstruction, the alleged offender would have to attempt to interfere directly or with someone directly involved with the investigation or the justice/trial process. I suppose in 1505, if Trump were to influence/order his staff to make efforts to interfere, Trump could be found guilty via Congress's 1996 clarification of "corruptly". It seems to me, it would have to be proven that Trump was serious in his efforts, the target would have to follow through with an obstruction attempt or suffer a job loss/punishment if they disobeyed Trump? Just hoping for some real world perspective on how "attempted obstruction" is determined to be a crime if the attempt is indirect. https://www.justice.gov/jm/criminal-resource-manual-1725-protection-government-processes-obstruction-pending-proceeding-18 Edited July 24, 2019 by GaryPinC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted July 24, 2019 Share Posted July 24, 2019 Johnson: "Point of order. Was the purpose of this hearing to get Mueller to recommend impeachment?" Nadler didn't think that was appropriate (but it's the truth). Powell makes the mistake of asking Mueller to talk about his own report and how he arrived at a conclusion. Mueller won't do it (can't do it?) Because Mueller didn't write the report. Weissman did. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LB3 Posted July 24, 2019 Share Posted July 24, 2019 I keep wondering how anyone can not see how poorly this is going for the Dems, then I remember... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted July 24, 2019 Share Posted July 24, 2019 Just now, LBSeeBallLBGetBall said: I keep wondering how anyone can not see how poorly this is going for the Dems, then I remember... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Bifurcated reality. (a manufactured one) 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted July 24, 2019 Share Posted July 24, 2019 5 minutes ago, GaryPinC said: Any lawyers here able to provide perspective? Looking very basically at the US code, specifically 1503 and 1505 of Title 18, to be guilty of attempted obstruction, the alleged offender would have to attempt to interfere directly or with someone directly involved with the investigation or the justice/trial process. I suppose in 1505, if Trump were to influence/order his staff to make efforts to interfere, Trump could be found guilty via Congress's 1996 clarification of "corruptly". It seems to me, it would have to be proven that Trump was serious in his efforts, the target would have to follow through with an obstruction attempt or suffer a job loss/punishment if they disobeyed Trump? Just hoping for some real world perspective on how "attempted obstruction" is determined to be a crime if the attempt is indirect. https://www.justice.gov/jm/criminal-resource-manual-1725-protection-government-processes-obstruction-pending-proceeding-18 Not a lawyer, but the question that nobody wants to answer is that even if Muller was hesitant to charge a sitting President with obstruction, why did he not charge anyone else in his orbit? If there was obstruction, Trump couldn't have done it on his own. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted July 24, 2019 Share Posted July 24, 2019 Yeah dems......................it's going great. Mollie Hemingway: "In fact, he comes across as completely out of it, a figurehead to protect those who were actually running the probe. That so many Clinton allies were running the probe without real oversight from Mueller (or any skepticism from the media) is suddenly difficult to ignore." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted July 24, 2019 Share Posted July 24, 2019 Fusion/Langley Ken is PISSED He should be. this was a disaster for the dems. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whatdrought Posted July 24, 2019 Share Posted July 24, 2019 Okay, I was working and only got bits and pieces of this. Can someone from each side of the argument post what they feel is the best report/summarization? @Tiberius if you have one I will read it without flaming it- just wanting both sides. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted July 24, 2019 Share Posted July 24, 2019 Just now, whatdrought said: Okay, I was working and only got bits and pieces of this. Can someone from each side of the argument post what they feel is the best report/summarization? @Tiberius if you have one I will read it without flaming it- just wanting both sides. It's simple: Every democrat asked questions about Volume 2 while ignoring completely Volume 1. The dem tag line / talking point (which they all repeated) was "no one is above the law." Every republican asked questions about Volume 1 and shot holes in Volume 2 being untested. It was a bad look for Mueller who came off as dottering and not sharp, on top of being unwilling to expound on even his own report. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted July 24, 2019 Share Posted July 24, 2019 SING ALONG: But I can’t speak to that, no (no) no can do No, I can’t speak to that, no (no) no can do I can’t speak to that, no (no) no can do I can’t speak to that Can’t speak to that Can’t speak to that Can’t speak to that H/T Hall and Oats . 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts