Mueller Investigation pt 6

Status
Not open for further replies.
As much as I would like to believe that Mueller will say something stronger about Trump's O of J, I have a feeling he will stick to what he's already said in the report. :(
 
I predict he's going to truthfully answer the questions that are asked.

Dems need a strategy going in; Mueller really doesn't. He's not going to volunteer anything but I doubt if he'll be evasive.

My pet peeve is that sometimes multiple-part questions seem designed to get air time for the person asking the question. Committee Democrats will need a disciplined approach.

Mueller is testifying because he was subpoenaed. He'll follow the process. Purely speculatively, he's probably glad he got subpoenaed.
 
I hope someone asks him if he had actually reached the end of his investigation or if Barr told him to shut it down. If his answer is

He had reached the end = Barr did not shut it down.
He was shut down by Barr = Barr shut it down
He decline to answer = Barr shut it down
 
Last edited:
Lurch said:
And Lindsey Graham, upon being asked about Mueller's testifying, has stated (again) that for him it's case closed.
Click to expand...
Just once I'd like a reporter to ask him, "Do you think John McCain would have agreed with you?"
 
Minoosh said:
I predict he's going to truthfully answer the questions that are asked.

Dems need a strategy going in; Mueller really doesn't. He's not going to volunteer anything but I doubt if he'll be evasive.

My pet peeve is that sometimes multiple-part questions seem designed to get air time for the person asking the question. Committee Democrats will need a disciplined approach.

Mueller is testifying because he was subpoenaed. He'll follow the process. Purely speculatively, he's probably glad he got subpoenaed.
Click to expand...

Dems should use former prosecutors or staffers to answer questions

I'd love to see Chuck Rosenberg and/or Barb McQuade and/or Joyce Vance in there asking questions.
 
Trump Tweets

According to Fake News (and low ratings) @CNN, “Democrats say hearings could change impeachment debate.” That’s because they have lost the impeachment debate (80% say NO), and they are hoping that yet another DO OVER, after 2 1/2 years and $40,000,000, will turn things around....

....No Collusion, No Obstruction! Robert Mueller said he was done after his last 9 minute news conference, as later corrected. Now the Dems want to give it another try. Does it ever end?
 
Trump Tweets

Why aren’t the Democrats in the House calling Comey, Brennan, Clapper, Page and her FBI lover (whose invaluable phone records were illegally deleted), Crooked Hillary, Podesta, Ohr (and Nellie), the GPS Fusion characters, Christopher Steele, the DNC (& their missing server)....

....and all of the others who have leaked, lied and did so many other terrible things? How is it even possible that these people are not being brought forward? Because it is a Rigged Democrat Con Game, and the Fake and Corrupt Media loves every minute of it!
 
Fast Eddie B said:
On what basis?
Click to expand...

Possibly on the basis that he might be disinclined to comment on internal DoJ policy? I don't really know the right answer; I'm just covering all the bases.

Remember, despite the way Trump and his sycophants try to paint Mueller as a "democrat hack" and "conflicted" and "one of the 20, 18, 15, 17 angry Democrats", Muller is actually a straight up, scrupulously honest, stickler for the rules. If he thought he might be going to break a rule by commenting on internal DoJ matters, he would err on the side of caution.
 
smartcooky said:
...
Remember, despite the way Trump and his sycophants try to paint Mueller as a "democrat hack" and "conflicted" and "one of the 20, 18, 15, 17 angry Democrats", Muller is actually a straight up, scrupulously honest, stickler for the rules. If he thought he might be going to break a rule by commenting on internal DoJ matters, he would err on the side of caution.
Click to expand...
You're always good for a laugh. This is the same Robert Mueller who, knowingly and with malice aforethought, aided and abetted the "WMD" hoax used to con the US into destroying Iraq for the neocon pseudo-republicans.
 
On February 11, 2003, FBI Director [the straight up, scrupulously honest, stickler for the rules] Robert Mueller Robert Mueller testified to Congress that "Iraq has moved to the top of my list. As we previously briefed this Committee, Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program poses a clear threat to our national security, a threat that will certainly increase in the event of future military action against Iraq. Baghdad has the capability and, we presume, the will to use biological, chemical, or radiological weapons against US domestic targets in the event of a US invasion."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationale_for_the_Iraq_War

Well, he may be a liar but he's not a shameless one - difficult to imagine someone looking more embarrassed at the words coming from their own mouth as they're speaking them.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uTDO-kuOGTQ
 
IsThisTheLife said:
On February 11, 2003, FBI Director [the straight up, scrupulously honest, stickler for the rules] Robert Mueller Robert Mueller testified to Congress that "Iraq has moved to the top of my list. As we previously briefed this Committee, Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program poses a clear threat to our national security, a threat that will certainly increase in the event of future military action against Iraq. Baghdad has the capability and, we presume, the will to use biological, chemical, or radiological weapons against US domestic targets in the event of a US invasion."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationale_for_the_Iraq_War

Well, he may be a liar but he's not a shameless one - difficult to imagine someone looking more embarrassed at the words coming from their own mouth as they're speaking them.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uTDO-kuOGTQ
Click to expand...

Which portions of the Mueller report does this specifically refute as factually inaccurate? Chapter and verse please.
 
smartcooky said:
Possibly on the basis that he might be disinclined to comment on internal DoJ policy? I don't really know the right answer; I'm just covering all the bases.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the honest answer.

My point was that when testifying before Congress under subpoena, one can’t just refuse to answer select questions without cause. Executive Privilege would not apply. Invoking the Fifth Amendment would not apply*.

The only thing I can think of that would apply would be reasons similar to those that precipitated the redactions in the report - harm to ongoing investigations, revealing sources and methods, that sort of thing.


*If Mueller did seek to invoke the Fifth due do possible criminal activity on his part - highly unlikely - a quick granting of immunity would take care of that.
 
Fast Eddie B said:
Thanks for the honest answer.

My point was that when testifying before Congress under subpoena, one can’t just refuse to answer select questions without cause. Executive Privilege would not apply. Invoking the Fifth Amendment would not apply*.

The only thing I can think of that would apply would be reasons similar to those that precipitated the redactions in the report - harm to ongoing investigations, revealing sources and methods, that sort of thing.


*If Mueller did seek to invoke the Fifth due do possible criminal activity on his part - highly unlikely - a quick granting of immunity would take care of that.
Click to expand...

How many investigations did Barr shut down after the report was released? Hopefully, comments can be made on those investigations now.

eta: 7 investigations
 
Last edited:
IsThisTheLife said:
You're always good for a laugh. This is the same Robert Mueller who, knowingly and with malice aforethought, aided and abetted the "WMD" hoax used to con the US into destroying Iraq for the neocon pseudo-republicans.
Click to expand...

Actually, if you knew and understood your history (and it seems blindingly obvious that you do not) you would know that he was among the many who were sucked in by what seemed to be solid intelligence.

I expect you probably already knew all this anyway, but like the good right-wing Trump sycophant you are, you would never want to let the truth get in the way of your bull-**** story.
 
smartcooky said:
Actually, if you knew and understood your history (and it seems blindingly obvious that you do not) you would know that he was among the many who were sucked in by what seemed to be solid intelligence.
I expect you probably already knew all this anyway, but like the good right-wing Trump sycophant you are, you would never want to let the truth get in the way of your bull-**** story.
Click to expand...
That's "history", is it? Who wrote it?

BS, watch the video and then tell me you can't can't see that he was visibly nervous and embarrassed as he parroted what he knew were bare-faced lies emanating from crooks the neocons had embedded in the intelligence services.
 
Mueller was "sucked in" by the phony intel about Saddam's WMD, had no way of fact-checking/verifying, exercising 'due diligence', of knowing any better than the average pundit, despite his senior position in the FBI and the privileged access it gave him. Yeh, I can see how someone naive enough (or dishonest enough) might say that.
 
IsThisTheLife said:
Mueller was "sucked in" by the phony intel about Saddam's WMD, had no way of fact-checking/verifying, exercising 'due diligence', of knowing any better than the average pundit, despite his senior position in the FBI and the privileged access it gave him. Yeh, I can see how someone naive enough (or dishonest enough) might say that.
Click to expand...

I think you might actually be on to something here:

Mueller is part of the cover up of Trump's crimes.

LOL!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom