Donald Trump Presidency discussion Thread VI

FreudianSlippers

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.

Ratcliffe is a potential replacement for Sessions. I'd imagine he will have another go at Mueller this afternoon in front of the House Intelligence Committee.

https://www.ketr.org/post/ratcliffe-mentioned-possible-replacement-sessions

peddlelies

This guy is the best from the D side so far

StringerBell

kilns wrote: »

Gohmert is embarrassing himself here

A regular lowlight of these hearings.

Penn

The article submitted by Louie Gohmert, "Mueller Unmasked", was written by... Louie Gohmert

https://twitter.com/davidgura/status/1154023883470712833

The Phantom Jipper

This is a very flaccid performance from Mueller. I can understand wanting to stay above the fray but he's allowing statements and inferences that he knows to be untrue go unchallenged.

peddlelies

Interesting that Mueller answered "very few" when asked how many interviews did he attend. He's just the face of the investigation I guess.

kilns

and here comes Jim Jordan :rolleyes:

Outlaw Pete

Mueller was asked if Fusion GPS was the Steele dossier producing firm referenced in Mueller's report and says he has no idea who that is nor who Glenn Simpson is. All "outside his purview" of course.

Democrats have just discredited the whole Mueller report in front of the American public.

Seems we will all have to wait for the Durham report to get any real answers as to what actually occurred and who was behind the Russian Collusion hoax.

Quin_Dub

peddlelies wrote: »

Interesting that Mueller answered "very few" when asked how many interviews did he attend. He's just the face of the investigation I guess.

Not surprising at all to be honest - He's the "CEO" of the activity. I wouldn't expect him to be actively involved in very much of the detail.

He sets the stage , he reviews the highlights/lowlights and provides direction.

everlast75

Is Jim Jordan's case that this is entrapment?

Is that what he is saying?

DrumSteve

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Mueller was asked if Fusion GPS was the Steele dossier producing firm referenced in Mueller's report and says he has no idea who that is nor who Glenn Simpson is. All "outside his purview" of course.

Democrats have just discredited the whole Mueller report in front of the American public.

Seems we will all have to wait for the Durham report to get any real answers as to what actually occurred and who was behind the Russian Collusion hoax.

If it’s what you say, I love it, especially later in the summer.

FrostyJack

kilns wrote:

and here comes Jim Jordan

Awful man. Was his father a pastor or a snake oil salesman? The sh1tshow as expected. At least he over with for now.

FrostyJack

Outlaw Pete wrote:

Democrats have just discredited the whole Mueller report in front of the American public.

It is amazing what you can convince yourself to believe. Like the fact Trump thinks he is a genius.

MrFresh

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Mueller was asked if Fusion GPS was the Steele dossier producing firm referenced in Mueller's report and says he has no idea who that is nor who Glenn Simpson is. All "outside his purview" of course.

Democrats have just discredited the whole Mueller report in front of the American public.

Seems we will all have to wait for the Durham report to get any real answers as to what actually occurred and who was behind the Russian Collusion hoax.

Did members of Trump's campaign meet with Russians and discuss trading for dirt on Clinton?

FreudianSlippers

Jim Jordan certainly loves the sound of his own voice.

Penn

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Mueller was asked if Fusion GPS was the Steele dossier producing firm referenced in Mueller's report and says he has no idea who that is nor who Glenn Simpson is. All "outside his purview" of course.

Democrats have just discredited the whole Mueller report in front of the American public.

Seems we will all have to wait for the Durham report to get any real answers as to what actually occurred and who was behind the Russian Collusion hoax.

Mueller can't comment on cases or investigations that are on-going.
Barr started an investigation into items including the origins of the Steele Dossier, Fusion GPS, Glenn Simpson etc
Therefore, Mueller can't comment on items relating to same.

The reason Mueller can't answer questions on it isn't because he's trying to hide anything, it's because the separate investigation (which is outside Mueller's purview) prevents him from being able to do so in accordance with the letter Barr/DOJ issued to Mueller as well as standard practices to prevent affecting an ongoing investigation.

Don't see what the issue with that is.

peddlelies

The fusion gps stuff is being investigated by IG Horrowitz / Justice department. All that stuff is extremely shady and it deserves to be looked at. That Russia lawyer essentially worked for Fusion GPS the time they were conducting oppo research on Trump.

Mueller didn't say he knew nothing about it, rather that he can't talk about it.

Edit: Above post got there first.

FrostyJack

everlast75 wrote:

Is Jim Jordan's case that this is entrapment. Is that what he is saying?

No he is trying to say the whole investigation was based on a lie, therefore nothing that turned up in the report is real. Madness as you would expect from him. Then the line that only Trump's aides were charged with lying. The fact Mueller wouldn't just say he is making stuff up means Jordan got a free pass. Ridiculous stuff, why couldn't Mueller be a Democrat or someone who really wants the country to see the truth.

FreudianSlippers

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Mueller was asked if Fusion GPS was the Steele dossier producing firm referenced in Mueller's report and says he has no idea who that is nor who Glenn Simpson is. All "outside his purview" of course.

Democrats have just discredited the whole Mueller report in front of the American public.

Seems we will all have to wait for the Durham report to get any real answers as to what actually occurred and who was behind the Russian Collusion hoax.

Huh?

FreudianSlippers

FrostyJack wrote: »

No he is trying to say the whole investigation was based on a lie, therefore nothing that turned up in the report is real. Madness as you would expect from him. Then the line that only Trump's aides were charged with lying. The fact Mueller wouldn't just say he is making stuff up means Jordan got a free pass. Ridiculous stuff, why couldn't Mueller be a Democrat or someone who really wants the country to see the truth.

I'm not a criminal lawyer, but plenty of my colleagues who do prosecute things like federal racketeering, money laundering, etc. would often say that an investigation may well start on the basis of incorrect or incomplete information passed on to them by CIs or other sources. That doesn't discredit what the substantive investigation finds so long as the investigation is started on a lawful basis - in the present case, there is no question that the Special Counsel investigation was lawfully instigated.

Stop moaning ffs

This drops on Netflix tonight. All about Cambridge analytica and Aaron banks and dark money that hacked brexit and elected Trump. Banks is trying to sue Netflix over it. That alone makes me want to watch.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iX8GxLP1FHo

Gbear

That Mueller is doing the absolute bare ****ing minimum in this testimony, even below what any sense of morality or patriotism would demand, makes it really obvious how far out of his way he's going to avoid any degree of being perceived as biased or even having any strong opinions.

In normal circumstances being completely aloof of the case would have a lot to recommend it, but here it smacks of cowardice and indolence. When there is an effort to create a single party state, destroy democracy and the Republic, not taking a stand is very much the doing nothing that allows evil to thrive.

DrumSteve

Gbear wrote: »

That Mueller is doing the absolute bare ****ing minimum in this testimony, even below what any sense of morality or patriotism would demand, makes it really obvious how far out of his way he's going to avoid any degree of being perceived as biased or even having any strong opinions.

In normal circumstances being completely aloof of the case would have a lot to recommend it, but here it smacks of cowardice and indolence. When there is an effort to create a single party state, destroy democracy and the Republic, not taking a stand is very much the doing nothing that allows evil to thrive.

If he gives any indication of bias; the repubs have all they need as it doesn't matter what he says, they'll just say he is biased (even more so than now).

He's playing it well at the moment IMO.

Gwen Cooper

Gbear wrote: »

That Mueller is doing the absolute bare ****ing minimum in this testimony, even below what any sense of morality or patriotism would demand, makes it really obvious how far out of his way he's going to avoid any degree of being perceived as biased or even having any strong opinions.

In normal circumstances being completely aloof of the case would have a lot to recommend it, but here it smacks of cowardice and indolence. When there is an effort to create a single party state, destroy democracy and the Republic, not taking a stand is very much the doing nothing that allows evil to thrive.

Isn't he under strict orders from DoJ about what he can or can't say? I read it somewhere this morning that he received guidelines for the testimony that he has to follow.

FreudianSlippers

Richmond with a very, very good question there which clearly outlines a crime committed by instructing McGahn to obstruct justice and commit perjury. Mueller confirmed in the affirmative.

FreudianSlippers

Jeffries hitting it out of the park.

mcmoustache

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Mueller was asked if Fusion GPS was the Steele dossier producing firm referenced in Mueller's report and says he has no idea who that is nor who Glenn Simpson is. All "outside his purview" of course.

Democrats have just discredited the whole Mueller report in front of the American public.

Seems we will all have to wait for the Durham report to get any real answers as to what actually occurred and who was behind the Russian Collusion hoax.

From Mueller's opening statement.

For example, I am unable to address questions about the initial opening of the FBI's Russia investigation, which occurred months before my appointment, or matters related to the so-called Steele dossier. These matters are subject of ongoing review by the department. Any questions on these topics should therefore be directed to the FBI or the Justice Department.

So he's unlikely to be able to answer your burning questions about Seth Rich, Uranium One or Benghazi during this session.

Gbear

DrumSteve wrote: »

If he gives any indication of bias; the repubs have all they need as it doesn't matter what he says, they'll just say he is biased (even more so than now).

He's playing it well at the moment IMO.

They'll do that anyway. They're liars. What's important is to tell the truth to everyone else.

For example, I can't remember which republican it was, but they repeated the canard that the Fusion GPS dossier "began all this" and Mueller could've corrected him, but he just let it slide. He's volunteering nothing and allowing the republicans to continuously muddy the waters.

If he didn't want to face up to the realities of the political ramifications of report, he shouldn't have done it.

Gbear

Gwen Cooper wrote: »

Isn't he under strict orders from DoJ about what he can or can't say? I read it somewhere this morning that he received guidelines for the testimony that he has to follow.

He can tell them to jump in a lake. As long as he doesn't compromise any ongoing investigations, he can say what he likes.

He doesn't work for them anymore.

FreudianSlippers

If nothing else is clear from the report or the testimony today, it's that Trump telling McGahn to fire Mueller (regardless whether he did it or not) is obstruction of justice. Mueller's statement at the end of that line of questioning is really all he could say to not agree with Jeffries - i.e. I'm not saying you're right, but you're not wrong necessarily.