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

Outlaw Pete

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

FYP

No fyp needed. Doesn't matter who he said it to, he still said it "several" times.

StringerBell wrote: »

Do me a favour, just fact check yourself there. Save people time, good man.

https://twitter.com/joshscampbell/status/1119671173330038784

FreudianSlippers

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

https://twitter.com/joshscampbell/status/1119671173330038784

This counters your point

Quin_Dub

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

So Armstrong would be totally happy with the report if the prosecutorial team were Trump donors?

Yeah.. I don't quite get the end point of his argument.

Is he saying that anyone that has ever publicly stated a political preference (either by a donation or otherwise) cannot be expected to be able to be independent in an investigation?

mcmoustache

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

https://twitter.com/joshscampbell/status/1119671173330038784

Mueller and Barr are two different people.

Sonics2k

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

No fyp needed. Doesn't matter who he said it to, he still said it "several" times.

https://twitter.com/joshscampbell/status/1119671173330038784

Huh? Sorry Pete, are you actually reading and watching these?

FrostyJack

Go onto Foxnews page. I was correct what it would say. Mueller admits he is friend with Comey. Stumbles of Fusion GPS. What talking head say. Fair and balanced.

FreudianSlippers

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Yeah.. I don't quite get the end point of his argument.

Is he saying that anyone that has ever publicly stated a political preference (either by a donation or otherwise) cannot be expected to be able to be independent in an investigation?

That seems to be the allegation. In addition, he fails to point out that the other 50% of the team were not known to be Democratic supporters and Mueller himself is a life-long Republican.

Outlaw Pete

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

This counters your point

Yes, of course it does. Can you quote where I said Barr said it in public? No, you can't.

Funny how all you people in here accept every quote attributed to Trump in the Mueller report, but when one quote is attributed to Muellur by way of Barr..... suddenly it's not okay to reference that unless we have a recording of it happening!?

Give me a break. We have no reason to doubt Barr on this point and every reason to doubt this fool who looked bemused at the mention of Fusion GPS.

Billy Mays

Sonics2k wrote: »

Huh? Sorry Pete, are you actually reading and watching these?

He's probably following it on r/The_Donald

FreudianSlippers

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

No fyp needed. Doesn't matter who he said it to, he still said it "several" times.

Who is "he"? If "he" is Barr, then you are correct that he did falsely say that Mueller made that statement.

Mueller today under oath said that his decision was based on the OLC opinion. Even if, and I stress if, Mueller did say to Barr what Barr alleges (with no evidence) then it's far more likely that Mueller is telling the truth today.

TomOnBoard

The Reps have ABSOLUTELY no interest in the content of the Mueller Report, except to undermine it where they feel they can.

That said, I don't see the Dem strategy of forcing Mueller to testify to Congress having worked spectacularly. He's actually not a great witness and looks quite like a deer in the headlights on occasion. I suspect he has some hearing loss and that is not helping the flow of his testimony.

There's lots of stuff in the testimony for Fox News to turn into propaganda so I'll expect a number of such propaganda gems to surface here in due course.

FreudianSlippers

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Yes, of course it does. Can you quote where I said Barr said it in public? No, you can't.

Funny how all you people in here accept every quote attributed to Trump in the Mueller report, but when one quote is attributed to Muellur by way of Barr..... suddenly it's not okay to reference that unless we have a recording of it happening!?

Give me a break. We have no reason to doubt Barr on this point and every reason to doubt this fool who looked bemused at the mention of Fusion GPS.

I'm really not understanding what you're attempting to say here? Everything Barr says is true (albeit hearsay) but Mueller's direct testimony under oath is not true? ...and your evidence of this is...?

Penn

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Yes, of course it does. Can you quote where I said Barr said it in public? No, you can't.

Funny how all you people in here accept every quote attributed to Trump in the Mueller report, but when one quote is attributed to Muellur by way of Barr..... suddenly it's not okay to reference that unless we have a recording of it happening!?

Give me a break. We have no reason to doubt Barr on this point and every reason to doubt this fool who looked bemused at the mention of Fusion GPS.

So we have no reason to doubt Barr, speaking at a press conference paraphrasing someone else's words, and every reason to doubt Mueller, testifying under oath about his own opinion and who can't answer questions on Fusion GPS because it's subject to an ongoing investigation?

Quin_Dub

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Yes, of course it does. Can you quote where I said Barr said it in public? No, you can't.

Funny how all you people in here accept every quote attributed to Trump in the Mueller report, but when one quote is attributed to Muellur by way of Barr..... suddenly it's not okay to reference that unless we have a recording of it happening!?

Give me a break. We have no reason to doubt Barr on this point and every reason to doubt this fool who looked bemused at the mention of Fusion GPS.

Actually we do..

Mueller himself directed the question about the Barr statement from the GOP member back to his letter sent immediately after the Barr letter/press conference.

Mueller is clearly saying by that that he disagreed with Barrs interpretation and by going on record with his position vis-a-vis the OLC issue he is re-affirming that.

FatherTed

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Mueller changing his story re OLC and indicting a sitting president.

In March he said that it wasn't preventing an indictment of President Trump, now he claims it did.

What a shitshow.

Hmmm no that was Barr so considering this now both Trump and Barr can be impeached....

Quin_Dub

Billy Mays wrote: »

He's probably following it on r/The_Donald

##Mod Note##

3rd times the charm.

Up the standards please!

hill16bhoy

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I'm really not understanding what you're attempting to say here? Everything Barr says is true (albeit hearsay) but Mueller's direct testimony under oath is not true? ...and your evidence of this is...?

Don't beat yourself up about it, "Outlaw Pete" doesn't understand what he's trying to say either.

mcmoustache

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Yes, of course it does. Can you quote where I said Barr said it in public? No, you can't.

Funny how all you people in here accept every quote attributed to Trump in the Mueller report, but when one quote is attributed to Muellur by way of Barr..... suddenly it's not okay to reference that unless we have a recording of it happening!?

Give me a break. We have no reason to doubt Barr on this point and every reason to doubt this fool who looked bemused at the mention of Fusion GPS.

Mueller even wrote to Barr to indicate that Barr's characterisation wasn't accurate:

Mueller fired off the letter to Barr on March 27, just three days after the attorney general sent his Mueller Report summary to Congress. A Justice Department official confirmed the letter to The Daily Beast, which was first reported by The Washington Post.

That summary, Mueller wrote, “did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance of this office’s work and conclusions,” according to the Post.

“There is now public confusion about critical aspects of the results of our investigation,” he continued. “This threatens to undermine a central purpose for which the Department appointed the Special Counsel: to assure full public confidence in the outcome of the investigations.”

The letter also requested Barr release the report’s “introductions and executive summaries,” in order to “alleviate the misunderstandings that have arisen” among the public and Congress about the probe.

Quin_Dub

##Mod Note##

3rd time was clearly not the charm!...

I get that it's a fast moving day today for this thread , but cut out the one liners and the glib digs at other posters.

Cards all round from now on..

Thank you.

Cheerful Spring2

Appearance by Mueller is an embarrassment. He is refusing to answer basic questions about the investigation. It beyond my purview seriously? You there to answer questions about your report and he should be allowed to just say i can not answer that. Politics in America is truly broken when you can't find out why the investigation started and why. He's refusal to answer basic questions about the Steele dossier is tragic.

Outlaw Pete

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I'm really not understanding what you're attempting to say here?

If a poster came on here and said Trump said 'X' and cited the Mueller report as evidence of that..... none of you would be FYP'ing their post and saying 'No Trump didn't say that, 'Y' said he said it'.

Guess we'll soon hear what Barr has to say.

MrFresh

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

If a poster came on here and said Trump said 'X' and cited the Mueller report as evidence of that..... none of you would be FYP'ing their post and saying 'No Trump didn't say that, 'Y' said he said it'.

Guess we'll soon hear what Barr has to say.

The difference is that Trump is a proven liar, Barr has been shown as dishonest and we have evidence that Mueller was telling the truth.

FrostyJack

Cheerful Spring2 wrote:

Appearance by Mueller is an embarrassment. He is refusing to answer basic questions about the investigation. It beyond my purview seriously? You there to answer questions about your report and he should be allowed to just say i can not answer that. Politics in America is truly broken when you can't find out why the investigation started and why. He's refusal to answer basic questions about the Steele dossier is tragic.

Why the investigation started is irrelevant, we know why it started but the GOP has to make a conspiracy theory out of it as the evidence uncovered is so damning. Lucky for the GOP Mueller would not veer from his remit as he almost said Trump should be impeached at the end there.

duploelabs

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Appearance by Mueller is an embarrassment. He is refusing to answer basic questions about the investigation. It beyond my purview seriously? You there to answer questions about your report and he should be allowed to just say i can not answer that. Politics in America is truly broken when you can't find out why the investigation started and why. He's refusal to answer basic questions about the Steele dossier is tragic.

Oh you're back, the origins of the steele dossier was outside the remit of the inquiry and therefore wouldn't be answered by Mueller

Penn

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Appearance by Mueller is an embarrassment. He is refusing to answer basic questions about the investigation. It beyond my purview seriously? You there to answer questions about your report and he should be allowed to just say i can not answer that. Politics in America is truly broken when you can't find out why the investigation started and why. He's refusal to answer basic questions about the Steele dossier is tragic.

Again, because Barr and the DOJ have started an investigation into that, Mueller can't speak on those issues because it could affect or make public info about that which could affect that investigation. The DOJ reiterated exactly that in a letter to Mueller a few days ago. What's ridiculous is the GOP constantly asking questions about it and giving out that Mueller couldn't answer questions on it when they knew the exact reason why.

Penn

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

If a poster came on here and said Trump said 'X' and cited the Mueller report as evidence of that..... none of you would be FYP'ing their post and saying 'No Trump didn't say that, 'Y' said he said it'.

Guess we'll soon hear what Barr has to say.

If it was in the Mueller report it would be taken as truth as it's the result of a long investigation back up by evidence and cited with such.

Barr speaking at a press conference is a man talking. He was paraphrasing a conversation he had with someone else, and was speaking at a press conference.

Mueller himself was speaking publicly, under oath, and giving his own opinion/account.

They're completely different scenarios.

TomOnBoard

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Appearance by Mueller is an embarrassment. He is refusing to answer basic questions about the investigation. It beyond my purview seriously? You there to answer questions about your report and he should be allowed to just say i can not answer that. Politics in America is truly broken when you can't find out why the investigation started and why. He's refusal to answer basic questions about the Steele dossier is tragic.

Barr''s assistant wrote to Mueller recently and told him specifically NOT to refer to anything beyond what appears in the redacted report as any other matter would be covered by Executive Privilege. Therefore, Mueller was never in a position to answer many of the questions raised by House members; hence the "beyond my purview ' response (s).

Outlaw Pete

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Jim Jordan certainly loves the sound of his own voice.

kilns wrote: »

and here comes Jim Jordan :rolleyes:

Amazing the attitude on here to one of the only members of congress that is speaking about what is at the heart of the Russian Collusion hoax. If you are all so interested in justice, then why aren't you interested in the corrupt origins of the investigation?

Mueller effectively plead the 5th today with his dozens of refusals to answer questions as he knows that his investigation was partisan in nature... at the very least. We're gonna be hearing a lot more about Joseph Mifsud that's for damn sure.

https://twitter.com/Jim_Jordan/status/1154033949867413504

Quin_Dub

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Appearance by Mueller is an embarrassment. He is refusing to answer basic questions about the investigation. It beyond my purview seriously? You there to answer questions about your report and he should be allowed to just say i can not answer that. Politics in America is truly broken when you can't find out why the investigation started and why. He's refusal to answer basic questions about the Steele dossier is tragic.

TomOnBoard wrote: »

Barr''s assistant wrote to Mueller recently and told him specifically NOT to refer to anything beyond what appears in the redacted report as any other matter would be covered by Executive Privilege. Therefore, Mueller was never in a position to answer many of the questions raised by House members; hence the "beyond my purview ' response (s).

The specific reason that he could not answer anything related to the Stelle Dossier or the FISA warrants is that they are subject to another investigation and he was explicity told that he couldn't answer , which the GOP knew ,but by asking the questions they get to play to the crowd about the "origins" of the investigation.

And ironically , if he did give information or opinion on those issues he himself might be guilty of obstruction or attempting to pervert to course of justice!!

Outlaw Pete

Quin_Dub wrote: »

The specific reason that he could not answer anything related to the Stelle Dossier or the FISA warrants is that they are subject to another investigation and he was explicity told that he couldn't answer , which the GOP knew ,but by asking the questions they get to play to the crowd about the "origins" of the investigation.

And ironically , if he did give information or opinion on those issues he himself might be guilty of obstruction or attempting to pervert to course of justice!!

Some of the questions, sure, but far from all of them.

Watching MSNBC for my sins and even their political pundits said that the ongoing investigation didn't excuse some of his swerves.