Mueller Investigation pt 6

Status
Not open for further replies.
Belz... said:
Didn't I just describe it?

Most probably, Mueller didn't mean to say in an open hearing that Trump would've been indicted were he not the President at this time.
Click to expand...

He's said it more than once. He appears to have confirmed it to multiple different Dems. I'll do my best to find quotes, but that wasn't the only quote relevant to that.

ETA: My confusion stems from what's the difference between saying you "won't come to a conclusion" because you can't charge a sitting president and you didn't ever intend to come to a conclusion because you can't charge a sitting president.
 
Last edited:
plague311 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Because they are playing by a different set of rules. And to strike a hit which actually does at least some damage, you really need to get the hammer down.

I hope you are right, but given history of the last few years, I am pessimistic.
 
plague311 said:
He's said it more than once. He appears to have confirmed it to multiple different Dems. I'll do my best to find quotes, but that wasn't the only quote relevant to that.

ETA: My confusion stems from what's the difference between saying you "won't come to a conclusion" because you can't charge a sitting president and you didn't ever intend to come to a conclusion because you can't charge a sitting president.
Click to expand...

It's the difference between saying "I didn't consider whether or not Trump committed a crime" and "I came to the conclusion that Trump committed a crime but I declined to prosecute him because of OLC guidelines". People are pouncing on his one statement as if it proves the latter, whereas it's more likely that he intended to say the former - as he has done many times before.
 
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
It's the difference between saying "I didn't consider whether or not Trump committed a crime" and "I came to the conclusion that Trump committed a crime but I declined to prosecute him because of OLC guidelines". People are pouncing on his one statement as if it proves the latter, whereas it's more likely that he intended to say the former - as he has done many times before.
Click to expand...

Hmm, I wont' press it, but I guess I'm just not smart enough to see the difference. To me it seems like Mueller is saying he agrees Trump committed a crime, and he laid that out, but he never had an intention on charging him. I'll have to wait to see what Popehat says about the whole thing.
 
Rep. Johnson said Trump collaborated with the investigation fully. Didn't he refuse to answer questions?

ETA: Gods, at least the Democrats ask questions.
 
Last edited:
Belz... said:
Funnily enough, Mueller is clearly more irritated with the GOP's questions than the Democrats'.
Click to expand...

The impression I keep getting throughout this whole affair is the Mueller is a, for lack of a better term, Stannis. He believes in procedural compliance above all else.

On one hand he might be the most honest agent in this entire thing, but every statement out of his mouth is going to be a very careful, almost mathmaticians answer. He's not going to get baited into "saying not saying" or "I'm not saying *wink, wink*" sort of stuff.

Right now the Republicans are 100% of the time and the Dems are about 5% of the time just all but begging him to write a narrative for them, not answer direct questions. And I don't think that's the wavelength Mueller is willing/able to operate on.
 
Last edited:
Belz... said:
Rep. Johnson said Trump collaborated with the investigation fully. Didn't he refuse to answer questions?
Click to expand...

This is mostly a rhetorical response, but, who is testifying here? Mueller? Or Rep. Johnson? Johnson's job is to ask questions, not assert answers.
 
Belz... said:
Rep. Johnson said Trump collaborated with the investigation fully. Didn't he refuse to answer questions?

ETA: Gods, at least the Democrats ask questions.
Click to expand...

The Republicans are working hard to establish their narrative, no collusion, no wrongdoing, dodgy Steele dossier, President cooperated fully, whole thing a witch hunt because Mueller was denied the FBI job. Allowing Mueller to speak, or saying anything remotely factual, would derail that process and so they are avoiding it at all costs.
 
pgwenthold said:
This is mostly a rhetorical response, but, who is testifying here? Mueller? Or Rep. Johnson? Johnson's job is to ask questions, not assert answers.
Click to expand...

Not for the President and the GOP it isn't, it's to promote and propagate the GOP version of events.
 
Belz... said:
Funnily enough, Mueller is clearly more irritated with the GOP's questions than the Democrats'.
Click to expand...
I think that would be expected.

The Democrats want to establish facts. (Yes, they may want to put their own little spin on things, but its to their benefit to try to stick to actual real information.)

The Republicans would want to obfuscate and distract, and part of that will involve personal attacks on Mueller and the process that went into putting together the report.
 
Trump Retweets

Melissa A.
‏@TheRightMelissa
Follow @TheRightMelissa
Boom Jim Jordan just blew the lid off the Hoax as Mueller cowers & refuses to answer important questions like why the person who started the fake Russia hoax was interviewed & not charged for lying but Trump associates were charged for unrelated & process crimes..

Tom Fitton
‏Verified account
@TomFitton
Replying to @realDonaldTrump @KatiePavlich @FoxNews
No collusion. No obstruction, No impeachment. Shut the coup cabal down!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom