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…7071737576…328

Comments

  • Options
    #2162
    everlast75
    Registered Users Posts: 19,710 ✭✭✭✭everlast75


    It appears the Reps are attacking the reason for the launch of the investigation, not the findings??


  • Options
    #2163
    Quin_Dub
    Moderators, Politics Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 15,546 Mod ✭✭✭✭Quin_Dub


    Did Mueller just explicitly say that Trump could be charged when he leaves office based on the findings in the report???

    If yes , that's huge.


  • Options
    #2164
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    Quin_Dub wrote: »
    Did Mueller just explicitly say that Trump could be charged when he leaves office based on the findings in the report???

    If yes , that's huge.
    That whole line of questioning there from Buck seemed like a massive own-goal, his question as to whether there was sufficient evidence to charge the President with obstruction was met with the answer that the OLC opinion prevented him from doing so - that's a clear yes to evidence supporting obstruction; then, as you point out, he asked about whether Mueller believed he could prosecute Trump after he left office and he answered in the affirmative - the question is whether he meant that legally he would no longer be bound by the OLC opinion or whether the was sufficient evidence to do so.


  • Options
    #2165
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    I didn't hear clearly, but why did Mueller not have to answer Cicilline's last question? That was a huge question.


  • Options
    #2166
    FrostyJack
    Registered Users Posts: 1,731 ✭✭✭FrostyJack


    FreudianSlippers wrote:
    I didn't hear clearly, but why did Mueller not have to answer Cicilline's last question? That was a huge question.


    I thought he was having a stroke or something. The gavel must have sounded at that time. He looked the other way and froze.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #2167
    Quin_Dub
    Moderators, Politics Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 15,546 Mod ✭✭✭✭Quin_Dub


    FreudianSlippers wrote: »
    I didn't hear clearly, but why did Mueller not have to answer Cicilline's last question? That was a huge question.

    Yeah.. odd that Nadler moved along there , he allowed multiple other "I've started so I'll finish" scenarios.

    The answer would be significant.

    Hopefully the next Dem will re-ask the question.


  • Options
    #2168
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    It's interesting because the question was finished within the time and other questions were allowed to be answered out of time if the question was finished within the time.


  • Options
    #2169
    Quin_Dub
    Moderators, Politics Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 15,546 Mod ✭✭✭✭Quin_Dub


    Quin_Dub wrote: »
    Yeah.. odd that Nadler moved along there , he allowed multiple other "I've started so I'll finish" scenarios.

    The answer would be significant.

    Hopefully the next Dem will re-ask the question.

    And they did!!


  • Options
    #2170
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    I know Swalwell is on the Intelligence Committee, but I expected more than one question from him.

    Lieu almost got Mueller to read that sentence! Would have been a great sound-byte.


  • Options
    #2171
    Quin_Dub
    Moderators, Politics Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 15,546 Mod ✭✭✭✭Quin_Dub


    Lieu really focussed questions there.

    And yet again , he got Mueller to directly say that Trump would have been indicted if he weren't President.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #2172
    DrumSteve
    Registered Users Posts: 10,798 ✭✭✭✭DrumSteve


    This is really not good for Trump.


  • Options
    #2173
    brendanwalsh
    Registered Users Posts: 988 ✭✭✭brendanwalsh


    Mueller must have forgot to take his tablets this morning. Doesn’t have a clue what’s goin on.


  • Options
    #2174
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    McClintock very close to using the phrase "witch hunt" there, but caught himself.


  • Options
    #2175
    Quin_Dub
    Moderators, Politics Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 15,546 Mod ✭✭✭✭Quin_Dub


    brendanwalsh wrote: »
    Mueller must have forgot to take his tablets this morning. Doesn’t have a clue what’s goin on.

    ##Mod Note##

    Up the standard please.


  • Options
    #2176
    DrumSteve
    Registered Users Posts: 10,798 ✭✭✭✭DrumSteve


    So he can get indicted after he leaves office and he was only not indicted already due to the OLC opinion...?


    LOCK HIM UP


  • Options
    #2177
    everlast75
    Registered Users Posts: 19,710 ✭✭✭✭everlast75


    Quin_Dub wrote: »
    Yeah.. odd that Nadler moved along there , he allowed multiple other "I've started so I'll finish" scenarios.

    The answer would be significant.

    Hopefully the next Dem will re-ask the question.

    I missed that - what was the question?


  • Options
    #2178
    Quin_Dub
    Moderators, Politics Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 15,546 Mod ✭✭✭✭Quin_Dub


    DrumSteve wrote: »
    So he can get indicted after he leaves office and he was only not indicted already due to the OLC opinion...?


    LOCK HIM UP

    ##Mod Note##

    As before , up the standard


  • Options
    #2179
    brendanwalsh
    Registered Users Posts: 988 ✭✭✭brendanwalsh


    Mueller just committed perjury.
    Said under oath here the olc was the reason he didn’t indict, but he previously told Barr this was not the case.


  • Options
    #2180
    Quin_Dub
    Moderators, Politics Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 15,546 Mod ✭✭✭✭Quin_Dub


    everlast75 wrote: »
    I missed that - what was the question?

    The question was whether Mueller agreed with the letter signed by 1000 lawyers saying that Trump would be indicted but for the OLC position.


  • Options
    #2181
    Outlaw Pete
    Registered Users Posts: 10,423 ✭✭✭✭Outlaw Pete


    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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #2182
    FrostyJack
    Registered Users Posts: 1,731 ✭✭✭FrostyJack


    brendanwalsh wrote:
    Mueller just committed perjury. Said under oath here the olc was the reason he didn’t indict, but he previously told Barr this was not the case.


    Where did he tell Barr that? He has always stated it was the office of legal council memo dictating his decision.


  • Options
    #2183
    Quin_Dub
    Moderators, Politics Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 15,546 Mod ✭✭✭✭Quin_Dub


    brendanwalsh wrote: »
    Mueller just committed perjury.
    Said under oath here the olc was the reason he didn’t indict, but he previously told Barr this was not the case.

    No - Barr was the one that said that , not Mueller directly.

    And in the questions from the Blonde GOP member (Mesko??) when she challenged him on that, he referred to the letter he sent immediately after the Barr letter.

    So - That seems to me , that Mueller did not agree with the Barr interpretation about the OLC position..

    Taken in the whole , I think that puts Barr in a lot more trouble than anyone else.


  • Options
    #2184
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    Outlaw Pete wrote: »

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

    FYP


  • Options
    #2185
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    Demings got Mueller to agree that the investigation was somewhat impeded by Trump officials being untruthful. Probably the second biggest new statement from the hearing today so far.


  • Options
    #2186
    FrostyJack
    Registered Users Posts: 1,731 ✭✭✭FrostyJack


    As an aside to the actual testimony, if you were looking in from another country or another planet you would question why one side has such diversity in it ranks and the other has mainly white guys with a sprinkle of women. Rather telling about the state of American politics.


  • Options
    #2187
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    https://twitter.com/AndrewDesiderio/status/1154046499514408960


  • Options
    #2188
    Quin_Dub
    Moderators, Politics Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 15,546 Mod ✭✭✭✭Quin_Dub


    So this latest GOP guy is just going through a list of "But Obama" and "But Hillary" scenarios.


  • Options
    #2189
    StringerBell
    Registered Users Posts: 14,176 ✭✭✭✭StringerBell


    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.

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

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



  • Options
    #2190
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    I don't think Steube is doing himself any favours here. The fact that Mueller wasn't actually fired doesn't mean that the initial instruction by Trump to McGahn to fire Mueller was not obstruction of justice; it's a deliberate attempt to misconstrue the law.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #2191
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


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


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement