nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Donald Trump Presidency discussion Thread VI

Quin_Dub

The continuing discussion of the Donald Trump Presidency.

Keep it civil and please note the charter before posting

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

FreudianSlippers

For anyone thinking about watching the Mueller testimony - I wouldn't bother, he's basically just confirmed that he's not going to say anything that isn't already in the report, not make any testimony clearing up or addressing anything subject of ongoing review by the Justice Department or ongoing legal cases.

He has basically just said the report is what it is.

peddlelies

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

For anyone thinking about watching the Mueller testimony - I wouldn't bother, he's basically just confirmed that he's not going to say anything that isn't already in the report, not make any testimony clearing up or addressing anything subject of ongoing review by the Justice Department or ongoing legal cases.

He has basically just said the report is what it is.

What did you honestly expect?

These hearings are always hyped up and go out in a whimper. Political theatre, that's all it is.

StringerBell

Something for everyone there in the opening statement. Both camps can spin different parts to suit their agenda.

The questioning will be so important in fleshing out or teasing out certain bits of information. Even just ask the man to read the 448 pages word for word!

kilns

You wont hear anything new from Mueller he just said that. All you will see today is grandstanding from the politicians

StringerBell

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

For anyone thinking about watching the Mueller testimony - I wouldn't bother, he's basically just confirmed that he's not going to say anything that isn't already in the report, not make any testimony clearing up or addressing anything subject of ongoing review by the Justice Department or ongoing legal cases.

He has basically just said the report is what it is.

But we all knew this? Its nothing new, there is no need for anything new. there is a need for some of the public to actually hear what was in the report since they wont read it!

FreudianSlippers

He did just confirm that the report does not exonerate Trump though, so thankfully that is put to bed.

StringerBell

Look at how strong he is on the Russian interference, look at how much he is emphasizing how dangerous it was etc and nobody will pay any attention to it

Nadlers Q&A is on point so far.

StringerBell

Boom

OLC opinion cited by Mueller as key.

Confirms with his own words what many, many Americans need to understand.

FreudianSlippers

StringerBell wrote: »

But we all knew this? Its nothing new, there is no need for anything new. there is a need for some of the public to actually hear what was in the report since they wont read it!

Not necessarily - he is not compelled to show up to this, so there was the potential that he could explain the rationale for certain decisions (or lack thereof) in the report. It's clear he does not intend to do that.

ECO_Mental

Nadler doing well ...yes no answers only. Very good

FreudianSlippers

Paraphrase: "Is it correct that if you had concluded the President [committed obstruction] you would not have said so in your report?"

The answer was effectively that this was correct as a result of the OLC opinion but an action could be taken after he is no longer in office.

Reading between the lines there, the answer is that there was a crime.

StringerBell

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Not necessarily - he is not compelled to show up to this, so there was the potential that he could explain the rationale for certain decisions (or lack thereof) in the report. It's clear he does not intend to do that.

But he made it very clear, in his press conference in May. The report is his testimony.

Listen to him explain the rationale, OLC opinion etc. That stuff is very important to get on record, on camera, but the man himself.

FreudianSlippers

Why is Collins asking whether Mueller continued to act as Special Counsel after the office closed in May?

FreudianSlippers

StringerBell wrote: »

But he made it very clear, in his press conference in May. The report is his testimony.

Listen to him explain the rationale, OLC opinion etc. That stuff is very important to get on record, on camera, but the man himself.

I agree in principle, but a report cannot be testimony.

Quin_Dub

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Why is Collins asking whether Mueller continued to act as Special Counsel after the office closed in May?

He's building up to - "The report is the report , nothing new here. No point in you being here"

batgoat

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Why is Collins asking whether Mueller continued to act as Special Counsel after the office closed in May?

Collins is being incredibly rude tbh.

kilns

Collins is very poor at asking questions

peddlelies

Collins caught him well there, he contradicted his own report.

Quin_Dub

peddlelies wrote: »

Collins caught him well there, he contradicted his own report.

Not really - He barraged him with words and then when Mueller actually had time to catch up with the ramble he agreed with the report.

FreudianSlippers

peddlelies wrote: »

Collins caught him well there, he contradicted his own report.

Not really - he asked a question which had no simple yes or no answer.

peddlelies

He clearly asked if collusion and conspiracy are one of the same, Mueller replied "No" but he quoted Mueller's own words in the report which says they are, only difference is that conspiracy is the legal jargon.

Quin_Dub

I have to say that Mueller isn't the "ice-man" I was expecting..

A little bit stumbling if I'm honest.

FreudianSlippers

Lofgren with a very pointed line of questioning which results in the over-arching question outside of this testimony: why hasn't Trump sanctioned Russia?

heebusjeebus

peddlelies wrote: »

He clearly asked if collusion and conspiracy are one of the same, Mueller replied "No" but he quoted Mueller's own words in the report says they are, only difference is that conspiracy is the legal jargon.

The report says they are "largely" the same. He was asked if they were the same. Collins was trying to confuse matters.

batgoat

Quin_Dub wrote: »

I have to say that Mueller isn't the "ice-man" I was expecting..

A little bit stumbling if I'm honest.

Think it's more that he's a highly capable investigator and is good at assembling a team.

FreudianSlippers

peddlelies wrote: »

He clearly asked if collusion and conspiracy are one of the same, Mueller replied "No" but he quoted Mueller's own words in the report which says they are, only difference is that conspiracy is the legal jargon.

It's not "legal jargon" it's either the law or it isn't.

FreudianSlippers

"Democrats and 'socialists' on the other side of the aisle"

:rolleyes:

Well done to Mueller for ignoring that little tantrum from that muppet.

peddlelies

Well done Ratcliffe, although he could have left out the socialist smear.

FreudianSlippers

peddlelies wrote: »

Well done Ratcliffe, although he could have left out the socialist smear.

How was it well done? He asked zero questions and went on a tirade that makes no sense saying that Mueller broke the law by not exonerating Trump which is pure nonsense.

Quin_Dub

peddlelies wrote: »

Well done Ratcliffe, although he could have left out the socialist smear.

He started out reasonably well in terms of building an argument , although not sure if I'd agree with his points about the "legality" of Volume 2 , but he killed any legitimacy he'd established in the last 30 seconds with the "democrats & socalists" rant.