Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Donald Trump Presidency discussion Thread VI

Options
1…6869717374…328

Comments

  • Options
    #2102
    FrostyJack
    Registered Users Posts: 1,731 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #2103
    peddlelies
    Closed Accounts Posts: 840 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #2104
    Igotadose
    Registered Users Posts: 13,450 ✭✭✭✭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")


  • Options
    #2105
    peddlelies
    Closed Accounts Posts: 840 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #2106
    Quin_Dub
    Moderators, Politics Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 15,454 Mod ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #2107
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #2108
    Quin_Dub
    Moderators, Politics Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 15,454 Mod ✭✭✭✭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


  • Options
    #2109
    peddlelies
    Closed Accounts Posts: 840 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #2110
    DrumSteve
    Registered Users Posts: 10,799 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #2111
    StringerBell
    Registered Users Posts: 14,160 ✭✭✭✭StringerBell


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

    "People say ‘go with the flow’ but do you know what goes with the flow? Dead fish."



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #2112
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #2113
    FrostyJack
    Registered Users Posts: 1,731 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #2114
    hill16bhoy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,029 ✭✭✭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


  • Options
    #2115
    Igotadose
    Registered Users Posts: 13,450 ✭✭✭✭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.)


  • Options
    #2116
    StringerBell
    Registered Users Posts: 14,160 ✭✭✭✭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.

    "People say ‘go with the flow’ but do you know what goes with the flow? Dead fish."



  • Options
    #2117
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #2118
    hill16bhoy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,029 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #2119
    ct5amr2ig1nfhp
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,019 ✭✭✭ct5amr2ig1nfhp


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


  • Options
    #2120
    FrostyJack
    Registered Users Posts: 1,731 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #2121
    peddlelies
    Closed Accounts Posts: 840 ✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #2122
    Quin_Dub
    Moderators, Politics Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 15,454 Mod ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #2123
    Quin_Dub
    Moderators, Politics Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 15,454 Mod ✭✭✭✭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..


  • Options
    #2124
    everlast75
    Registered Users Posts: 19,401 ✭✭✭✭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!?


  • Options
    #2125
    peddlelies
    Closed Accounts Posts: 840 ✭✭✭peddlelies


    I wish Gohmert and Jim Jordan would go away.


  • Options
    #2126
    Quin_Dub
    Moderators, Politics Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 15,454 Mod ✭✭✭✭Quin_Dub


    peddlelies wrote: »
    I wish Gohmert and Jim Jordan would go away.

    The "12 Angry Democrats" angle makes an appearance.


  • Options
    #2127
    kilns
    Registered Users Posts: 3,525 ✭✭✭kilns


    Gohmert is embarrassing himself here


  • Options
    #2128
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #2129
    Quin_Dub
    Moderators, Politics Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 15,454 Mod ✭✭✭✭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"


  • Options
    #2130
    FrostyJack
    Registered Users Posts: 1,731 ✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #2131
    Quin_Dub
    Moderators, Politics Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 15,454 Mod ✭✭✭✭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.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement