• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Mueller Investigation pt 6

Status
Not open for further replies.
During the break, on ABC, Chris Christie pointed out the obvious which the Democrats have not yet pointed out:

R: People are innocent until proven guilty therefore failing to clear the POTUS equates to exonerating him.

Christie: No it doesn't. Not guilty never exonerates a defendant.

This is a no brainer but so far the Ds have not pointed that out.
 
https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/1154040136109215744

Buck: "Could charge the president with a crime after he left office?"

Mueller: "Yes."

Buck: "You believe that you could charge the president of the United States with obstruction of justice after he left office?"

Mueller: "Yes."
Click to expand...

Everybody is picking up on this as if Mueller is saying that there is enough evidence to charge Trump after he leaves office, but I don't think that in context that's what Mueller meant. I think this exchange is Mueller saying that it is legally permissible to charge a former president with crimes he committed while in office.
 
This isn't a trial. "Technically speaking" lawyer-ese isn't going to matter.

When the gavel bangs at the end of this testimony are people in the position to do something about it; be that vote for/against him in 2020 as a citizen or pursue decided to or to not pursue further legal action against him as a long maker, going to change their minds?

That's the only question that matters.
 
Last edited:
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/1154040136109215744



Everybody is picking up on this as if Mueller is saying that there is enough evidence to charge Trump after he leaves office, but I don't think that in context that's what Mueller meant. I think this exchange is Mueller saying that it is legally permissible to charge a former president with crimes he committed while in office.
Click to expand...
Regardless, the Dems should by time on FOX and repeat it as often as possible.
 
carlosy said:
Reps are ******* crazy, but they are good in doing so. Dems are completely lame.

Honestly, this is a mess.
Click to expand...

Not if you are paying attention to what is happening

The Dems are staying on point; they are consistently delivering a co-ordinated hammering on the obstruction of justice.

The GOP are attacking Mueller, floating bat-**** crazy deep state conspiracy theories, and playing "Look, a squirrel". They are all over the place.
 
Last edited:
https://twitter.com/SethAbramson/status/1154043486405922818

68/ PLEASE RT, as this is the only part of the hearing that matters so far (direct quotes):

LIEU (D-CA): "The reason, again, that you did not indict Donald Trump is because of the OLC opinion stating that you cannot indict a sitting president, correct?

MUELLER: That is correct.
Click to expand...

Again, I'm not sure the meaning of this is quite as it's being characterised, given that Mueller has said several times already that he declined to reach a decision on Obstruction, rather than that he declined to charge.
 
Lesko has picked up on what I said above. The first person, in fact, that I believe isn't just going through pre-prepared talking points.

I don't think she really managed to phrase her questions in a way that would have allowed Mueller to clarify, though.
 
smartcooky said:
Not if you are paying attention to what is happening

The Dems are staying on point; they are consistently delivering a co-ordinated hammering on the obstruction of justice.

The GOP are attacking Mueller, floating bat-**** crazy deep state conspiracy theories, and playing "Look, a squirrel". They are all over the place.
Click to expand...

Well, I am trying.
But as was pointed out, the Dems fail to hit the nail, they keep dancing around it. Reps are being Reps.

And Mueller does... well he is not the ideal person to be in front of a camera. I really just refer to how he appears. Nothing about his actual abilities in his job.

If this goes on, it will not end one single bit in favor of the Dems. But probably some bits for the Reps.
 
plague311 said:
He's repeatedly said though, when asked why he didn't charge, it's because of the OLC. There's no other reason that he's given as to why he didn't charge.
Click to expand...

He's specifically said that he's not making a determination on whether or not he would have charged, had it been permissible to charge a sitting president.

People are leaping on this one brief exchange as if it's a huge "gotcha", despite the fact that it contradicts what he's repeatedly said before, and was given under circumstances where he's repeatedly shown himself to not be a strong witness, to require things to be repeated in order to understand what he's being asked. That he misspoke because he thought he was answering a slightly different question to the one he was actually being asked seems far more credible to me than that in the middle of this hearing he's suddenly and radically changed his stance.

I don't think it does anybody any good to frame it as the latter.
 
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/1154040136109215744



Everybody is picking up on this as if Mueller is saying that there is enough evidence to charge Trump after he leaves office, but I don't think that in context that's what Mueller meant. I think this exchange is Mueller saying that it is legally permissible to charge a former president with crimes he committed while in office.
Click to expand...

In itself, yes. But when he was asked, "The reason, again, that you did not indict Donald Trump is because of OLC opinion that you cannot indict a sitting president, correct?" he confirmed it. He didn't say, "There wasn't enough evidence to convict."
 
pgwenthold said:
In itself, yes. But when he was asked, "The reason, again, that you did not indict Donald Trump is because of OLC opinion that you cannot indict a sitting president, correct?" he confirmed it. He didn't say, "There wasn't enough evidence to convict."
Click to expand...

He said, including in the opening round of questioning by Nadler, that they didn't reach a conclusion on Obstruction because of the OLC opinion that you cannot indict a sitting president. What do you imagine changed his mind in the hour-and-change between answering the two sets of questions?
 
pgwenthold said:
In itself, yes. But when he was asked, "The reason, again, that you did not indict Donald Trump is because of OLC opinion that you cannot indict a sitting president, correct?" he confirmed it. He didn't say, "There wasn't enough evidence to convict."
Click to expand...

I don't think being technically correct in this case is very convincing. It's possible, but it's more likely that Mueller meant that he would not make that determination becaue of said guidline.
 
carlosy said:
Well, I am trying.
But as was pointed out, the Dems fail to hit the nail, they keep dancing around it. Reps are being Reps.

And Mueller does... well he is not the ideal person to be in front of a camera. I really just refer to how he appears. Nothing about his actual abilities in his job.

If this goes on, it will not end one single bit in favor of the Dems. But probably some bits for the Reps.
Click to expand...

They seem to have done an extremely good job at hashing out the details of the Obstruction. In fact, the Dems appear to be taking it literally number by number of the 10 statements.

How does this help the Reps? I'm interested in that.
 
Belz... said:
I don't think being technically correct in this case is very convincing. It's possible, but it's more likely that Mueller meant that he would not make that determination becaue of said guidline.
Click to expand...

What am I missing? What other conclusion can one come to?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom