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

FrostyJack

Is it just me or does Mueller look un well. Keeps making slip ups on words, not hearing things and I seen his hand shake a few times. Could be just nervous but as we never hear him speak I don't have any frame of reference. I had the impression he was a cool customer. Don't mean this as a slur on him.

Dems might have a good strategy here in just basically make Mueller read or confirm the negative things in the report. He laid out he won't say anything outside it. As said above there is something for both sides so far. At least it looks like he won't engage on the oranges of the investigation.

peddlelies

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

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.

The point was quite clear, since when it is prosecutorial procedure to prove innocence? He did ask a question, and Mueller couldn't give an example of another case of where it happened. He defied SC guidelines.

Do try keep up.

Igotadose

Russians probably poisoned him.:rolleyes:

He's wasting a lot of time with 'can you repeat the question' stuff. Kind of a bad performance. Lots of delaying stuff ("I'd have to look at the statute")

peddlelies

Quin_Dub wrote: »

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.

I agree, it was stupid to say that and it demeans his overall point.

Quin_Dub

peddlelies wrote: »

The point was quite clear, since when it is prosecutorial procedure to prove innocence? He did ask a question, and Mueller couldn't give an example of another case of where it happened. He defied SC guidelines.

Do try keep up.

In fact he didn't let Mueller explain himself - Mueller started to say "This was a unique situation" but he did not let him finish and continued his diatribe.

FreudianSlippers

Very interesting question/answer between Lee and Mueller there right before the confusion over the accurate wording, Mueller confirming that criminal obstruction of justice can happen even in the absence of other criminal activity. Nothing that isn't clear in the report, but key to get that asked/answered in the affirmative from Mueller himself.

Quin_Dub

With the latest GOP guy speaking it's clear that the GOP angle is going to be that the effort was not legitimate because they didn't bring charges

peddlelies

Quin_Dub wrote: »

In fact he didn't let Mueller explain himself - Mueller started to say "This was a unique situation" but he did not let him finish and continued his diatribe.

Point remains, never happened before. We heard the "unique situation" spiel back in 2016 too.

Mueller seems disjointed, I don't mean in his answers but his general mannerisms. This is probably the last thing he wanted to go through.

DrumSteve

I don't think the repubs are doing themselves any favours here; it just all seems like they want to compete to be the angriest at him so they can get a pat on the head from Donald.

StringerBell

Woop! Only took what, three Republicans to get a Clinton reference

FreudianSlippers

peddlelies wrote: »

The point was quite clear, since when it is prosecutorial procedure to prove innocence? He did ask a question, and Mueller couldn't give an example of another case of where it happened. He defied SC guidelines.

Do try keep up.

:rolleyes: I'm more than capable of "keeping up" thank you. His rambling tirade about the purposes and legality of the investigation has nothing to do with the alleged reverse-onus that was placed on Trump. The report is clear that there are certain things that happened and if Mueller did find that there was nothing there, he would have said so. That is unequivocally not the same as saying that there is an assumption of guilt.

FrostyJack

Igotadose wrote:

He's wasting a lot of time with 'can you repeat the question' stuff. Kind of a bad performance. Lots of delaying stuff ("I'd have to look at the statute")

Seems like a tactic. Seems to have stopped some of his stuttering.

My god these Republicans, as I suspected are going to be tough to listen to. Don't think I could sit in the same room as them.

hill16bhoy

peddlelies wrote: »

The point was quite clear, since when it is prosecutorial procedure to prove innocence? He did ask a question, and Mueller couldn't give an example of another case of where it happened. He defied SC guidelines.

Do try keep up.

Except he didn't.

Says the guy who wrote the guidelines.

https://twitter.com/neal_katyal/status/1154017455234342912?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet

Igotadose

And Sensenbrenner complained that, since Mueller didn't say Trump's conduct was impeachable when perhaps he could, the reports invalid. Gotta love that reasoning. Imagine if Mueller *had* said Trump's conduct was impeachable (which would've been extra-prosecutorial determination, which the other tGOPer complained about. Rabbit hole reasoning.)

StringerBell

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

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.

Would you expect anything more of that poster though? This is all the Reps can, or will do. Have a rant and a moan with some obfuscation thrown in with some insults.

They can't do anything else. that poster is correct, given what the Republicans are setting out to do, that lad did well. Sure, it was a tirade, sure it had no questions, sure it was pure nonsense....but that is the goal.

FreudianSlippers

Igotadose wrote: »

And Sensenbrenner complained that, since Mueller didn't say Trump's conduct was impeachable when perhaps he could, the reports invalid. Gotta love that reasoning. Imagine if Mueller *had* said Trump's conduct was impeachable (which would've been extra-prosecutorial determination, which the other tGOPer complained about. Rabbit hole reasoning.)

The Republican questioning actually undermines the OLC decision itself. What's the point of a Special Counsel being appointed to investigate criminal activity if they are not capable of bringing criminal charges against a sitting President? It undermines the "point" Ratcliffe was skirting around by showing that anything less than exoneration of the President in the report is not a finding of innocence.

hill16bhoy

StringerBell wrote: »

Would you expect anything more of that poster though? This is all the Reps can, or will do. Have a rant and a moan with some obfuscation thrown in with some insults.

They can't do anything else. that poster is correct, given what the Republicans are setting out to do, that lad did well. Sure, it was a tirade, sure it had no questions, sure it was pure nonsense....but that is the goal.

That has been the case with all Republicans in all the "blockbuster" televised hearings we've seen over the last couple of years.

You aren't watching an attempt to hold power to account.

You're watching shameless attempts to cover up corruption and criminality.

That is what the Republican party is.

ct5amr2ig1nfhp

Wow... "but Clinton" is coming out now. *facepalm*

FrostyJack

He didn't know who Fusion GPS were? I am confused what is going on here. At least he isn't answering the questions outside of his remit. No Bengazi mentions yet.

peddlelies

This is the article about Fusion GPS. Small world..

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/trump-dossier-firm-also-supplied-info-used-meeting-russians-trump-n819526

WASHINGTON — The information that a Russian lawyer brought with her when she met Donald Trump Jr. in June 2016 stemmed from research conducted by Fusion GPS, the same firm that compiled the infamous Trump dossier, according to the lawyer and a source familiar with the matter.

In an interview with NBC News, Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya says she first received the supposedly incriminating information she brought to Trump Tower — describing alleged tax evasion and donations to Democrats — from Glenn Simpson, the Fusion GPS owner, who had been hired to conduct research in a New York federal court case.

A source with firsthand knowledge of the matter confirmed that the firm's research had been provided to Veselnitskaya as part of the case, which involved alleging money laundering by a Russian company called Prevezon.

Quin_Dub

FrostyJack wrote: »

He didn't know who Fusion GPS were? I am confused what is going on here. At least he isn't answering the questions outside of his remit. No Bengazi mentions yet.

He knows, but he's not allowed answer any questions about the Steel Dossier.

Quin_Dub

As a separate issue - Why isn't Mueller wearing a clip-on mic?

He needs to move to the side to check his notes and Nadler(I assume) keeps having to ask him to move back to the mic..

everlast75

So Mueller has answered, on TV, the question as to whether Trump asked McGhan to fire Mueller in the affirmative, and that Trump then tried to cover it up.

Sounds like obstruction to me!?

peddlelies

I wish Gohmert and Jim Jordan would go away.

Quin_Dub

peddlelies wrote: »

I wish Gohmert and Jim Jordan would go away.

The "12 Angry Democrats" angle makes an appearance.

kilns

Gohmert is embarrassing himself here

FreudianSlippers

Gohmert's statement about Mueller being out of a courtroom for too long is a bit rich coming from someone who never practised civilian law as an attorney; he knew the answer, if Mueller allowed to elaborate, was going to be privilege but quickly changed the subject.

Gohmert not allowing Mueller to answer questions. This is a bad but optically good line of questioning.

Quin_Dub

kilns wrote: »

Gohmert is embarrassing himself here

That's was excruciating..

The whole "It can't be obstruction because he was innocent angle"

FrostyJack

Quin_Dub wrote:

He knows, but he's not allowed answer any questions about the Steel Dossier.

Yeah he could just say that but he went to check the citation as if he never heard of it. More time delaying?

"12 Angry Democrats"? So far all angry Republicans. Showboating to Individual 1.

Quin_Dub

FrostyJack wrote: »

Yeah he could just say that but he went to check the citation as if he never heard of it. More time delaying?

"12 Angry Democrats"? So far all angry Republicans. Showboating to Individual 1.

To be fair - He does seem to be "checking his notes" more often under GOP questioning compared to the Dem reps.