US Politics Thread 2016-2020

[Dowly]

Under your tinfoil hat?

[Catfish]

"Have you completely relieved the president?" Asked Democratic Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler.
"No," Mueller answered without hesitation. "The President was not acquitted of the deeds he allegedly committed." Later, he also confirms that he found evidence of Trump's efforts to influence witnesses: "That's correct."

At the same time, however, Mueller also repeated his view that he can not accuse an incumbent president under the guidelines of the Ministry of Justice.For this reason, he had also made no criminal decision whether Trump has actually obstructed the judiciary - or not, according to Mueller.

"Could Trump be sued after the end of his term?", a representative of the Republicans wanted to know. "Yes," Mueller said.


That's all that is to say about it. The Russians did influence the US elections and they will continue to do so with refined methods, in 2020.

[Dowly]

DEMINGS: Director Mueller, isn’t it fair to say that the president’s written answers were not only inadequate and incomplete because he didn’t answer many of your questions, but where he did his answers show that he wasn’t always being truthful.

MUELLER: There -- I would say generally.


You know, like innocent people do. Lie under oath.

[u crank]

A summing up of the days procedings from the comments section of an article in National Review by David French....

Mr. Mueller:

"But despite the DOJ's OLC policy, we could make a prosecutorial decision that the evidence was insufficient to prove that no member of the Trump campaign or any other American conspired with the Russian government or their agents to subvert the 2016 election.

But don't ask me about any details contained in the report with my full name on its cover page because I don't know any of the details contained in that report. And don't ask me about whether we investigated the credibility of the witnesses who we used to support our version of the facts because assessing their credibility was beyond the purview of my investigation. And don't ask me about the potential interest, bias, or prejudices of the staff that I hired because I determined they were the ones best able to get the job done."

Question by unnamed Congressman: "Mr. Mueller. Then what was the job with which you were tasked?"

Mueller: "That's beyond my purview."

[Deepseadiver]

Originally Posted by Onkel Neal

Wait, lol, there were photos.

He should return to SNL, he's still pretty funny, intentional or otherwise.

Can you show us the other photos? I am genuinely interested in seeing them.

[Skybird]

Neither the Republicans nor the Democrats got what they hoped for.

The Reps got no relief for Trump although they tried angrily to mount pressure on Mueller, but Mueller indeed was crystal clear by his wording in that he sees the president guilty, but could not charge him under current rules of play. Though he sometimes appeared to be a bit irritated by the furor of especially angry Republicans. In his world of reason, evidence and argument, biased emotions like this seem to have little room, he seemed to be ill-preparted to handle emotional rants. On the other hand, how not to be irriated by somethign that is not more than emotional rant?

The Democrats hoped for new ammunition against Trump, but Mueller did offer nothing new that he had not already said and written before. The Dems leave with empty hands, too.

If people would listen more closely and carfully, than this all would have been not necessary, for Mueller already in the past was very precise in what he wanted to say, and how he formulated it. His words back then were as crystal clear, and that has not changed.

Its all a populistic stage play what they did there.

I recommend to send both parties to hell. None of them is any good for anything anymore.

[u crank]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Neither the Republicans nor the Democrats got what they hoped for.

Let's remember who drag poor old Robert Mueller out of his rocking chair and before these committees. It wasn't the Republicans.

Mueller looked bad. Like an old guy in a home who is awakened from his nap and told it is time for lunch. And he doesn't know what lunch is. Painful to watch.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by u crank

Let's remember who drag poor old Robert Mueller out of his rocking chair and before these committees. It wasn't the Republicans.

True, but the propagandistic abuse by Trump and by Republicans of what Mueller said in his report, speaks volumes for that bad intentions as well. They simply distorted what Mueller actually said and wrote. I rate this as the far more serious offence, compared to the Democrats trying to find some ammo in Mueller's words, spoken or written. The democrats acted weak. The republicans acted malicious.

Mueller looked bad. Like an old guy in a home who is awakened from his nap and told it is time for lunch. And he doesn't know what lunch is. Painful to watch.

Cosmetics. Not important what he looked like, but what he had to say. Also note to worth: so far he seems to noit have contradcited himself, not once, in all of this. Police use to say that to differ a liar from somebody telling the truth, let them tell their story time and again. Often the liar's story will change over time, the truth-telling guy's story will not.

[Dowly]

Originally Posted by Skybird

The Democrats hoped for new ammunition against Trump, but Mueller did offer nothing new that he had not already said and written before. The Dems leave with empty hands, too.

I would imagine the point was to make this public and have people hear it from Mueller himself what his investigation found. And while most of it was hashing information from his report, he did clarify a lot of things such as Catfish said for example, that Trump can absolutely be charged the moment he leaves the office for obstruction or that obstruction doesn't have to succeed for it to be a crime etc.

[Mr Quatro]

It was just a tennis match between men and women that hate Trump and men and women that love Trump.

Truth is just a perception of ones own values

[Bilge_Rat]

Originally Posted by Dowly

I would imagine the point was to make this public and have people hear it from Mueller himself what his investigation found. And while most of it was hashing information from his report, he did clarify a lot of things such as Catfish said for example, that Trump can absolutely be charged the moment he leaves the office for obstruction or that obstruction doesn't have to succeed for it to be a crime etc.

The Mueller testimony was a dud and did not move the needle either way. Now as to the "obstruction" issue, there is no reasonable obstruction case here since:

1. There was no underlying crime to cover up so no corrupt intent. Yes, it is true that you can, in theory, have obstruction of justice without an underlying crime, but not with a President (see 3 below);

2. Even though the Mueller report lays out instances of alleged obstruction, the reality is that Mueller was not fired and the Trump WH allowed them access to all the witnesses they wanted and all the documents they wanted, so there was no actual obstruction. This contrasts with the Clinton WH which blocked the Starr investigation at every turn;

3. Under the Constitution, the President has the unrestricted power to hire and fire prosecutors, so he had the legal power to order the firing Mueller at any time. Exercising your legal powers under the Constitution is not obstruction of justice, unless you can show corrupt intent, but there is the "catch 22" since:

--3.1- there was no underlying crime so no one can point to a "corrupt intent" and

--3.2 - Mueller was not fired in any event.

[u crank]

Originally Posted by Skybird

True, but the propagandistic abuse by Trump and by Republicans of what Mueller said in his report, speaks volumes for that bad intentions as well. They simply distorted what Mueller actually said and wrote.

How so? AG Barr released the entire report. He did not change any part of it.

The democrats acted weak. The republicans acted malicious.

The malicious part was forcing Mueller to testify. He only agreed to avoid a subpoena. He did not want to do this. The Dems knew this. They did it anyway. Who's malicious?

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by u crank

How so? AG Barr released the entire report. He did not change any part of it.

You surely remember the controversy there has been b etween his comment on it, and what Mueller commendted inreply to Barr.

The malicious part was forcing Mueller to testify. He only agreed to avoid a subpoena. He did not want to do this. The Dems knew this. They did it anyway. Who's malicious?

The Republicans. The Democrats act weak, more or less desperate, and in the end just did what legally and formally they absolutely had the right to do. Whether Mueller liked it or not, legally doe snot matter (he did not, and said that already weeks ago, I posted on it - but different to Trump and some others, he understands the legal situation and the laws, and obeys them). The Republicans, on their hand, tried to twist, forge and turn the report's conclusions and what Mueller said, they defamed the man, and told rightout lies about what the report concludes - and they still continue to do so. Agitation and propaganda in disregard of the fact they claim to describe. That is the far more serious guilt. That Trump had the big mouth and chuzpe to claim in public the report said right the opposite of what it actually and as a fact says in writing, tells all one needs to mention here. The impression left by Barr is not better.

[u crank]

Originally Posted by Skybird

You surely remember the controversy there has been b etween his comment on it, and what Mueller commendted inreply to Barr.

The Republicans, on their hand, tried to twist, forge and turn the report's conclusions and what Mueller said, they defamed the man, and told rightout lies about what the report concludes - and they still continue to do so.

Yes I do. It wasn't much of a controversy. Barr summed up Mueller's conclusion. Barr didn't change Mueller's conclusion. Mueller declined to make a judgement on the obstruction part. Barr did his job and made it for him. Barr and Mueller have been friends for a long time. Barr wonder why Mueller would remark publicly about his, Barr's summation. He could have picked up the phone and called him. Optics probably concocted by Mueller's underlings.

I'll ask the obvious question. What did AG Barr change about the reports conclusion?

[Catfish]

Yeah, it is such a yuuuuge victory for TRUMP !

Before Skybird somehow doubts my sarcasm here..