Mueller Investigation pt 6

Status
Not open for further replies.
BrooklynBaby said:
Any ideas on who actually ran the "Mueller" investigation? I know more about than he does.
Click to expand...

No joke.

This goes to show that whoever has their name on an official report that it doesn't mean they actually wrote it or really had any input.

I remember watching Lee Hamilton, co-chair of the 9/11 Commission, being interviewed by Evan Solomon of the CBC. The interviewer had actually done some real research and when he questioned Lee Hamilton on the 9/11 Commission report he didn't know a thing about it. I used to joke, "Who knows less about 9/11 than Lee Hamilton?"

I can now say the same thing about the "Mueller Report". Who knows less about the Mueller Report than Robert Mueller?

I mean, wow, he didn't even know about Fusion GPS. He also refused to answer if Joseph Mifsud is actually a Russian agent.

p.s. But to answer your question, Andrew Wiseman.
 
Mike! said:
Did you miss Mueller walking that back at the opening of the afternoon session?
Click to expand...

Yeah, but it only changes the summary from:

He confirmed that the OLC memo was the only reason that Trump was not charged with obstruction of justice.

to

He confirmed that the OLC memo was the only reason that the SCO did not consider whether or not to charge Trump with obstruction of justice.

As much hay as the GOP is trying to make over that, it rings to my ears as worse. I believe Mr. Mueller put it at some other point as "we decided not to make a decision." As clever as the wording is to avoid some matter of protocol (and I mean isn't that what's really important here? :rolleyes:), it means the exact same thing. The OLC memo precluded indictment from ever being a possibility.
 
Delphic Oracle said:
This is where you get crafty.

Ask him "once Mr. Trump leaves office, do you believe he will be at risk of criminal liabilities for any actions he has taken as described in the report?"

Because if he uses the "hypothetical" side-step on that question, that will not go down well.
Click to expand...

Well, I can admit when I'm wrong.

It was a Republican that ended up asking it.

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

Robert Mueller: Yes.

Ken Buck: You believe that he committed — you could charge the President of the United States with obstruction of justice after he left office?

Robert Mueller: Yes.

Ken seemed rather incredulous over it, though I think he was distracted by the sound of his future in the party going down the toilet.

Trump is now trying to conflate Mueller's clarification over the OLC memo with this bombshell exchange.

Trump lashes out at NBC reporter who asked if he's worried he could be indicted after leaving office

Trump said it was “a very dumb and a very unfair question” to ask whether he could be indicted.

He also said Mueller himself had backtracked on the issue, though that was on a separate question.

“When you saw Robert Mueller’s statement. The earlier statement, and then he did a recap. He did a correction later on in the afternoon," Trump said. "And you know what that correction was, and you still ask the question. You know why, because you’re fake news."

"The fact that you even ask that question, you’re fake news because you know what, he totally corrected himself in the afternoon and you know that just as well as anybody," Trump added.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Delphic Oracle said:
Well, I can admit when I'm wrong.

It was a Republican that ended up asking it.

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

Robert Mueller: Yes.

Ken Buck: You believe that he committed — you could charge the President of the United States with obstruction of justice after he left office?

Robert Mueller: Yes.

Ken seemed rather incredulous over it, though I think he was distracted by the sound of his future in the party going down the toilet.

Trump is now trying to conflate Mueller's clarification over the OLC memo with this bombshell exchange.

Trump lashes out at NBC reporter who asked if he's worried he could be indicted after leaving office
Click to expand...

As I said when that exchange happened, my impression was that Mueller's meaning there was not "there is enough evidence that Donald Trump committed crimes that he can be prosecuted once he leaves office", but "a former president may legally be prosecuted after he leaves office for crimes that he committed while in office".
 
Wasn't particularly impressed with that moment of Ken Buck's questioning.

Mueller will give his best in principle answer. Probably some disconnect between what Buck is asking and Mueller is answering. Not sure Mueller meant Trump could be charged.

ETA: What Squeegee Beckenheim said :)
 
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
As I said when that exchange happened, my impression was that Mueller's meaning there was not "there is enough evidence that Donald Trump committed crimes that he can be prosecuted once he leaves office", but "a former president may legally be prosecuted after he leaves office for crimes that he committed while in office".
Click to expand...

It does heighten the stakes, though. To continue pressing that the crimes are real and should be acted on while not moving to impeach can (and is) being played up. There is an underlying cynicism about (*demon voice filter*) Committee heariiiinnnngggggssss (*filter off*) that is easy to tap into. Oh look, a dog and pony show, what do the pretty people in nice suits want us to feel they are Super ConcernedTM over and Doing SomethingTM about?

Plus just making sure we keep a full and accurate count on all Trump's lies :9.
 
Last edited:
The other eyebrow-raiser for me today was "the new normal/as we sit here" exchange.

Mueller Fears Trump’s Embrace of Russian Interference Could Be a ‘New Normal’

At an afternoon hearing before the House Intelligence Committee, Mueller was asked by Democratic Rep. Peter Welch whether the 2016 campaign “established a new normal” that will allow political candidates in the future to not report to the FBI that a “hostile foreign power is trying to influence an election.”

Mueller’s response: “I hope this is not the new normal, but I fear it is.”

Over several hours of questioning before both the House Judiciary and Intelligence committees, President Donald Trump’s legal and political liability dominated the line of inquiry, threatening to drown out a dire warning from Mueller about the current state of Russian political interference: “They are doing it as we sit here, and they expect to do it during the next campaign,” he said.
Click to expand...

ETA: Perhaps it goes without saying, but look around the "next" campaign is kinda getting going. They are doing it in this election that is currently underway.
 
Last edited:
There were a couple of significant things said during yesterday's testimony. I just don't think it does anybody any good to take a couple of quotes out of context and contrary to Mueller's oft-stated stances and try to massage them in to "Ha! Now we've got him! Mueller's totally validated absolutely everything that's ever been said about Trump!"

It's one of the key principles of sceptic thought - the more you want something to be true, the more you should examine whether or not it actually is true. I didn't think people were right to leap on the exchange with Ted Lieu, and I was shown to be right about that, and I don't think people are right to leap on the exchange with Buck.
 
Trump tweeting lots of clips from Fox and retweets of anyone he thinks said anything positive .
 
BrooklynBaby said:
My alternative facts turned out to be the correct ones in this hoax. I'm pretty sure even Michael Moore has given up on the pee pee tape surfacing. LOL.
Click to expand...

Wow, that's the one thing that needs to be true? All the rest can be true but if there's no pee tape, the whole thing's a hoax?

Are you for real? Do you really think there was no election interference? What's your basis for discounting the opinions of intelligence professionals in this field, and around the world?
 
Belz... said:
Wow, that's the one thing that needs to be true? All the rest can be true but if there's no pee tape, the whole thing's a hoax?

Are you for real? Do you really think there was no election interference? What's your basis for discounting the opinions of intelligence professionals in this field, and around the world?
Click to expand...


blind-partisanship.png

BLIND PARTISANSHIP​
 
Belz... said:
Wow, that's the one thing that needs to be true? All the rest can be true but if there's no pee tape, the whole thing's a hoax?

Are you for real? Do you really think there was no election interference? What's your basis for discounting the opinions of intelligence professionals in this field, and around the world?
Click to expand...

LoL. Opinions? You mean the "opinions" fed to corporate media performers like Rachel Maddow and disseminated to a gullible public, the ones citing "unnamed" "Russian officials"? The "opnions" compiled and added to in a certain "report" by an ex-MI6 weasel trading on his old-boy network connections? Those "opinions"?
 
Susheel said:
Racists about liberals: "You are just as bigoted against us as we are."
Click to expand...
But I am most definitely partisan, no bones, in so far that I'm as anti-liberal, anti-socialist, anti-SJW as it's possible for anyone to be.

I utterly despise the posturing, the hypocrisy, the lying and the underlying venality that really motivates "liberalism", whether it's in privileged middle-class poseurs or entitled, stupid ne're-do-wells who think the world owes them a living.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom