Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Director Mueller Speaks in Public for the First Time...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • ljadw
    replied
    The Democrats are panicking and the rats are leaving the sinking ship ,trampling each other.
    Phil Mudd ( the man who arrogantly said that DS would kill Trump ) said yesterday on CNN :

    Clock is ticking for Democrats before Barr finds out how the Trump probe started .
    Source : Real Clear Politics .
    The reason for the panic is the fear that MI6 agent Steele will talk and will frame the clients to save his neck .
    The honour code of criminals .
    They will all say : Wir haben es nicht gewust, we know nothing . But in vain .

    Leave a comment:


  • ljadw
    replied
    Originally posted by inevtiab1e View Post

    You know, none of those people speak for democrats.
    Robert Kennedy Jr is no Democrat ?
    Dana Bash is not working for a Democrat media
    Bill Kristol did not exhort to impeach Trump, he did not say that he would vote for Hillary ?
    The NYT is not a Democratic newspaper ?

    Leave a comment:


  • Cambronnne
    replied
    Originally posted by slick_miester View Post

    Yeah, I hear what you're saying, but you're overlooking one salient fact: a fair number of House Democrats put a lot of stock in Meuller's report, raised a lot of expectations for that report. If he doesn't testify -- either voluntarily or under subpoena -- then the whole country will ask, "what was the point of Mueller's probe?" On the other hand, if the committee subpoenas him, then they don't even have vasoline with which to smooth out the reaming he'll likely get once he's in front of the panel. Some way to thank your friend, eh. ( Makes you wonder if Mueller wasn't promised before taking the job that he wouldn't have to testify, or at the very least that the committee wouldn't subpoena him . . . . ) Either way, it's lose-lose.

    Guess I'll have to read that damned report for myself. . . . . Not that i want to . . . .


    With respect to trump, you've hit the nail on the head.
    If, as mueller claims, he could not indict trump then what was the point of a special counsel or even the investigation of trump?
    If the law said it was a dead end no matter what happened, why continue the investigation and pretend it was going somewhere?
    Was he lying to himself or just to us?


    I don't think that it is plausible that Mueller continued an investigation for 2 years even though it would never lead to anything.
    Instead, I think it is more reasonable to believe he is upset that he failed in his effort to become part of history by bringing down a president and is trying to get in one last word as he heads for the door.

    If there was evidence to charge trump, then recommend it.
    If he was never going to be able to recommend charges against trump, then he should have said so 2 years ago, but he didn't.
    And we are supposed to respect his opinions?

    Leave a comment:


  • ljadw
    replied
    Originally posted by Snowygerry View Post

    He found insufficient evidence for a charge of *conspiracy*, "collusion" apparently is not a crime defined anywhere in US law,

    it's just a word people like to use
    It is a word used by the Democrats in their attempts to impeach Trump ; the man whom they have chosen to prove this collusion,has been forced to say : there is no proof of collusion .

    Leave a comment:


  • Snowygerry
    replied
    Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
    (…)
    and found Trump cleared of collusion...
    He found insufficient evidence for a charge of *conspiracy*, "collusion" apparently is not a crime defined anywhere in US law,

    it's just a word people like to use

    Leave a comment:


  • Trung Si
    replied
    Originally posted by T. A. Gardner
    Nadler is issuing subpoenas for everyone in sight, even those clearly not able to testify or long gone from Washington. His push to hold contempt hearings on all just smell of the desperation of Democrats to pin something, anything on Trump.

    [img
    https://img.memecdn.com/just-let-it-go-allready_o_1912215.jpg[/img]


    Leave a comment:


  • T. A. Gardner
    replied
    Summing up, it seems to me at least:

    Trump is a lout. He's a troll. But, part of what got him elected was he basically said he was and would govern as one. I'd say, promise kept. That has rankled most Democrats and many Republicans.
    Since the day Trump was elected, the Democrats and some Republicans have been searching for a way to get him tossed out of office. I doubt anyone could argue with that.
    Thus, we get the Mueller investigation. Trump is cleared by Mueller of collusion with the Russians after an exhaustive investigation.
    Now, we get calls "Trump obstructed justice!" How does that happen? Mueller got all the information and witnesses he wanted and found Trump cleared of collusion. So, what exactly did Trump "obstruct?" How did he obstruct justice if Mueller was able to get everything he needed to reach conclusions?
    Seems to me, that Mueller-- and certainly beyond any doubt some of the liars...err lawyers… on his team are in the "Get Trump" camp. That was thoroughly discussed about a year or so ago here, among other places (feel free to go back and find those threads if you like). One lawyer, if I recall correctly, was tossed off the Mueller team for her overt hatred and loathing of Trump.
    The result of that is Mueller's report left a door cracked to allow the Trump haters to continue to be haters, giving them ammunition to continue to look for a way to toss him out of office.
    At the same time, Democrats in Congress started a number of very questionable "investigations" into other aspects of Trump's past. Schiff wants ten years of Trump's tax records to see if he's used his office as President to get favorable breaks on taxes. Trump has been in office a bit over two years, and you can only go back three on personal taxes, so why want ten years worth...? Sounds like a fishing expedition to me.
    Nadler is issuing subpoenas for everyone in sight, even those clearly not able to testify or long gone from Washington. His push to hold contempt hearings on all just smell of the desperation of Democrats to pin something, anything on Trump.



    Leave a comment:


  • ljadw
    replied
    The Democrats have enough votes in the House to start an impeachment (= accusation ) of Trump .It is even possible that 20 GOP RINO senators could vote Trump out of office .
    But ,notwithstanding what an American politician said ''for an impeachment, you need no proves,only votes ''. reality is that you need at minimum an excuse to impeach the potus . The fact that the Democrats did not start impeachment ,although they are shouting since 2 years that Trump colluded with Putin and that this was high treason (which it is not ) ,proves that there is no such thing as collusion;now they invent something else '' obstruction of justice '',as this also will fail, they will use the refusal of Trump to give them his tax returns, and,after that also will not result in impeachment, they will invent something else ,something even more stupid .
    There are enough Democrats in Congress as Omar and AOC who would impeach Trump because he called the Muslim mayor of London a loser .

    Leave a comment:


  • slick_miester
    replied
    Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post



    It is alleged, but unproven, that part of the reason for his statement was to avoid having to testify.
    While I can't know if this is true, it makes sense.
    The dems know that there really is no evidence to charge trump with a crime.
    So, all they have is the ability to hint at crimes.
    If Mueller testified, he might have to admit things that contradict that message. This way he gets to say what he wants, but never has to support it under oath.
    If the dems control the hearings, they are not going to subpoena him because they can't control what he is asked.
    Yeah, I hear what you're saying, but you're overlooking one salient fact: a fair number of House Democrats put a lot of stock in Meuller's report, raised a lot of expectations for that report. If he doesn't testify -- either voluntarily or under subpoena -- then the whole country will ask, "what was the point of Mueller's probe?" On the other hand, if the committee subpoenas him, then they don't even have vasoline with which to smooth out the reaming he'll likely get once he's in front of the panel. Some way to thank your friend, eh. ( Makes you wonder if Mueller wasn't promised before taking the job that he wouldn't have to testify, or at the very least that the committee wouldn't subpoena him . . . . ) Either way, it's lose-lose.

    Guess I'll have to read that damned report for myself. . . . . Not that i want to . . . .

    Leave a comment:


  • Cambronnne
    replied
    Originally posted by slick_miester View Post

    I don't know the man personally so I won't speculate about his motives. That being said, since he's asking the committee to examine his report, then -- based on what I know of our legal system -- he has no choice but to testify: if his report is to be entered as evidence, then he has to testify, in order to validate it. I don't blame him for not wanting to testify in what's guaranteed to be a master political goatfck, but as a former prosecutor, he ought to know that he has no choice. I'm sure that the committee doesn't want to embarrass itself by subpoenaing Mueller, but again, if they want to introduce his report into evidence, then Mueller has to testify. I don't see any way around it.



    How does one introduce evidence into a legal proceeding without testifying under oath?

    Counselor . . . .



    I wouldn't be surprised if those descrepencies are raised . . . .



    Like I said earlier, I don't think that there's any choice in the matter . . . .

    Unless the House Judiciary Committee chooses to forego their most prominent piece of evidence. If they do that, however, then they tacitly concede Trump's claim that Mueller's investigation had been a witch hunt all along, and I don't see the House Democrats wanting to do that, or even being able to do that. They've promised too much already. . . . .

    Pelosi warned 'em to forget about impeachment. When it comes time to put up or shut up, I have absolutely no idea where these crumbs might fall . . . . Neither, does it seem, does anyone else.


    It is alleged, but unproven, that part of the reason for his statement was to avoid having to testify.
    While I can't know if this is true, it makes sense.
    The dems know that there really is no evidence to charge trump with a crime.
    So, all they have is the ability to hint at crimes.
    If Mueller testified, he might have to admit things that contradict that message. This way he gets to say what he wants, but never has to support it under oath.
    If the dems control the hearings, they are not going to subpoena him because they can't control what he is asked.

    Leave a comment:


  • slick_miester
    replied
    Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post
    Mueller's recent statement reveals an interest to be involved in the political process
    I don't know the man personally so I won't speculate about his motives. That being said, since he's asking the committee to examine his report, then -- based on what I know of our legal system -- he has no choice but to testify: if his report is to be entered as evidence, then he has to testify, in order to validate it. I don't blame him for not wanting to testify in what's guaranteed to be a master political goatfck, but as a former prosecutor, he ought to know that he has no choice. I'm sure that the committee doesn't want to embarrass itself by subpoenaing Mueller, but again, if they want to introduce his report into evidence, then Mueller has to testify. I don't see any way around it.

    Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post
    but not testifying under oath.
    How does one introduce evidence into a legal proceeding without testifying under oath?

    Counselor . . . .

    Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post
    If he testifies under oath he might end up being charged with perjury given what Barr has said of their discussions.
    I wouldn't be surprised if those descrepencies are raised . . . .

    Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post
    Mueller isn't trying to remove himself from the partisan politics, just trying to control his role.

    I say make him testify now.
    Like I said earlier, I don't think that there's any choice in the matter . . . .

    Unless the House Judiciary Committee chooses to forego their most prominent piece of evidence. If they do that, however, then they tacitly concede Trump's claim that Mueller's investigation had been a witch hunt all along, and I don't see the House Democrats wanting to do that, or even being able to do that. They've promised too much already. . . . .

    Pelosi warned 'em to forget about impeachment. When it comes time to put up or shut up, I have absolutely no idea where these crumbs might fall . . . . Neither, does it seem, does anyone else.

    Leave a comment:


  • Cambronnne
    replied
    Originally posted by slick_miester View Post

    Our Constitution is great, but the Framers' revealed their blindspot when it came to impeachment. If Mueller reported that Pres Trump or members of his team committed criminal acts, then the matter should be referred to the House Judiciary Committee, and then they can decide to:
    1. appoint a special investigator/special investigative team; and/or
    2. hold open hearings;
    Once that's done, the committee can decide to draw up a bill of impeachment -- if they decide that the facts warrant such. If not, then they'll report that. Since Robert Mueller has essentially reported nothing, then option #1 is likely off the table. That leaves option #2, and since Mueller has expressed a strong disinclination against testifying, for political reasons, I think it safe to say that open hearings are off the table too.

    Given the structure of the bodies involved, it's a terribly political process. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has been reluctant to commence impeachment proceedings, either because she suspects that the evidence is insufficient to warrant a bill of impeachment from the House Judiciary Committee, or she believes that the "optics" at this stage don't serve House Democrats' interests. 2020 is an election year, and I'm guessing that Pelosi would rather invest her finite cache of political capital into gaining more House seats for her party, and unseating the current President. If the House Judiciary Committee chooses to go into full impeachment mode, then they'll be committed to that course of action -- and let the chips fall where they may. If they end up with egg on their faces, then Pelosi fears that all of the House Democrats will pay come November 2020.

    Check out Andrew Johnson's debacle for an example of how flawed the impeachment process really is.
    Mueller's recent statement reveals an interest to be involved in the political process, but not testifying under oath.
    If he testifies under oath he might end up being charged with perjury given what Barr has said of their discussions.

    Mueller isn't trying to remove himself from the partisan politics, just trying to control his role.

    I say make him testify now.

    Leave a comment:


  • slick_miester
    replied
    Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post



    He doesn't understand the difference between what the FBI does and what Congress does, or even what the Constitution provides, but still feels qualified to lecture others about how it all works.

    You are right on all counts.
    Our Constitution is great, but the Framers' revealed their blindspot when it came to impeachment. If Mueller reported that Pres Trump or members of his team committed criminal acts, then the matter should be referred to the House Judiciary Committee, and then they can decide to:
    1. appoint a special investigator/special investigative team; and/or
    2. hold open hearings;
    Once that's done, the committee can decide to draw up a bill of impeachment -- if they decide that the facts warrant such. If not, then they'll report that. Since Robert Mueller has essentially reported nothing, then option #1 is likely off the table. That leaves option #2, and since Mueller has expressed a strong disinclination against testifying, for political reasons, I think it safe to say that open hearings are off the table too.

    Given the structure of the bodies involved, it's a terribly political process. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has been reluctant to commence impeachment proceedings, either because she suspects that the evidence is insufficient to warrant a bill of impeachment from the House Judiciary Committee, or she believes that the "optics" at this stage don't serve House Democrats' interests. 2020 is an election year, and I'm guessing that Pelosi would rather invest her finite cache of political capital into gaining more House seats for her party, and unseating the current President. If the House Judiciary Committee chooses to go into full impeachment mode, then they'll be committed to that course of action -- and let the chips fall where they may. If they end up with egg on their faces, then Pelosi fears that all of the House Democrats will pay come November 2020.

    Check out Andrew Johnson's debacle for an example of how flawed the impeachment process really is.

    Leave a comment:


  • Cambronnne
    replied
    Originally posted by Freebird View Post

    No, they were not investigating "impeachable offences ", rather they investigated criminal obstruction.



    Then your Nancy Pelosi should get on with the job and impeach him....


    He doesn't understand the difference between what the FBI does and what Congress does, or even what the Constitution provides, but still feels qualified to lecture others about how it all works.

    You are right on all counts.

    Leave a comment:


  • Freebird
    replied
    Originally posted by inevtiab1e View Post

    The FBI laid out 10+ impeachable offenses with detailed evidence.
    No, they were not investigating "impeachable offences ", rather they investigated criminal obstruction.

    Originally posted by inevtiab1e View Post
    It's up to congress to do the right thing and not allow a lawless president to get away with it. That's not what our Founding Fathers wanted.

    You either support the constitutional process or do not.
    .
    Then your Nancy Pelosi should get on with the job and impeach him....

    Leave a comment:

Latest Topics

Collapse

Working...
X