Archive 2017-2019 Political Thread

[gangstonc]

Yes, that definitely contributes to it although Mueller should've been prepared for that. But it's very possible that he's always ignored the various conspiratorial ravings by Trump's Republican allies, and thought the DOJ letter limiting the scope of his testimony would allow him to stonewall such non-pertinent questions. More likely though is that Mueller's still living in timeline in which DC and Congress weren't so nakedly partisan and willing to engage in obvious bad-faith rhetoric. You'd think his time as SC would've made it clear to him that the rules of the game, respect for our laws and political process, and Congress' behavior have all changed in remarkable ways.

I would contend that Mueller would have intentionally not prepared for it. Mueller does seem naïve to the way politics works now.

 

[Matt]

I would contend that Mueller would have intentionally not prepared for it. Mueller does seem naïve to the way politics works now.

Mueller was a figurehead and not involved in the investigation. He is not familiar with the material or the report. And it showed today. Hack!

 

[gangstonc]

Mueller was a figurehead and not involved in the investigation. He is not familiar with the material or the report. And it showed today. Hack!

You still don't care to comment on Trump's quote about his constitutional powers?

 

[Evan]

The excuses for Mueller's ineptness are too funny. The guy is a hack and this hearing further illustrates that fact. Good riddance to Bob Mueller!

I know you're mad that you can no longer claim that Trump was exonerated or that he escaped indictment because there was a lack of evidence. Mueller explicitly said they didn't indict Trump because of the OLC memo.

Mueller has always kind of searched for the precise word he wants to use. Considering how his answers were so substantially limited by DOJ just a day before his testimony, it's fair to say that his extreme caution and quest to be precise is not something Trump sycophants are able to appreciate.

I find it a bit ironic considering Trump inserts his foot into his own mouth on a seemingly daily basis. "Many fine people on both sides" "I fired him [Comey] because of Russia" -- I could go on and on. Maybe being careful and precise is something Trump should bone up on. Besides, they're questioning a guy about a 500 page report, his ability to answer was sharply limited by DOJ less than 24 hours before his hearing (interesting that Barr waited until the last moment to respond to Mueller when he inquired about any limitations 14 days ago), and the GOP and Democrats both keep asking questions outside his purview, or that have been limited by DOJ. Anyone watching knows that both the Dems and GOP studied the DOJ letter and are craftily trying to get around it's limitations with inventive tactics and questions.

If Mueller came out and was flippant with his responses you'd be attacking him for being reckless. Mueller could save your life tomorrow and you'd still bash him on a daily basis because the god you worship is threatened by him.

 

[Evan]

Inflation? Don’t see that mentioned.

It's of no use. Somehow Trump has convinced a number of Republicans that tariffs aren't taxes or that China is the one paying the tariffs. The Federal Reserve, honest Republicans, and numerous businesses have all correctly pointed out that tariffs are either passed on to the consumer by raising prices, or the impacted business sees it's profit cut by the same percentage as the tariff. Just like any other tax increase in our lifetimes.

 

[Matt]

I know you're mad that you can no longer claim that Trump was exonerated or that he escaped indictment because there was a lack of evidence. Mueller explicitly said they didn't indict Trump because of the OLC memo.

Mueller has always kind of searched for the precise word he wants to use. Considering how his answers were so substantially limited by DOJ just a day before his testimony, it's fair to say that his extreme caution and quest to be precise is not something Trump sycophants are able to appreciate.

I find it a bit ironic considering Trump inserts his foot into his own mouth on a seemingly daily basis. "Many fine people on both sides" "I fired him [Comey] because of Russia" -- I could go on and on. Maybe being careful and precise is something Trump should bone up on. Besides, they're questioning a guy about a 500 page report, his ability to answer was sharply limited by DOJ less than 24 hours before his hearing (interesting that Barr waited until the last moment to respond to Mueller when he inquired about any limitations 14 days ago), and the GOP and Democrats both keep asking questions outside his purview, or that have been limited by DOJ. Anyone watching knows that both the Dems and GOP studied the DOJ letter and are craftily trying to get around it's limitations with inventive tactics and questions.

If Mueller came out and was flippant with his responses you'd be attacking him for being reckless. Mueller could save your life tomorrow and you'd still bash him on a daily basis because the god you worship is threatened by him.

Mueller told AG Barr the exact opposite. Provide me another example where a prosecutor exonerated the subject of an investigation. His job is to prosecute or not. Nowhere in the job description falls exoneration. If he was not charged, he was exonerated.

 

[gangstonc]

Mueller told AG Barr the exact opposite. Provide me another example where a prosecutor exonerated the subject of an investigation. His job is to prosecute or not. Nowhere in the job title falls exoneration. If he was not charged, he was exonerated.

Not true at all. Mueller said he would have charged him if he wasn’t president and said he could charge him after Trump is done being president.

 

[Matt]

Not true at all. Mueller said he would have charged him if he wasn’t president and said he could charge him after Trump is done being president.

And that is in conflict with his report and what he told AG Barr. He's a dem hack!

 

[Kory]

Are there statutes of limitations on what Mueller would charge Trump with ?

 

[gangstonc]

And that is in conflict with his report and what he told AG Barr. He's a dem hack!

Please cite your sources. I don’t see that in Mueller’s letter here: http://cdn.cnn.com/cnn/2019/images/05/01/letter.32719.pdf

 

[Matt]

Please cite your sources. I don’t see that in Mueller’s letter here: http://cdn.cnn.com/cnn/2019/images/05/01/letter.32719.pdf

And there are more.

https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-n...ler-report/h_a1cd232666d54b9faa078f7288b50cd9



Attorney General William Barr said that during a March meeting with special counsel Robert Mueller, Mueller "reiterated several times in a group meeting that he was not saying that but for the OLC [Office of Legal Counsel] opinion he would have found obstruction."

 

[Kory]

The ATF issued an advisory to Federal Firearm Dealers in Alabama today stating that they may no longer sell a firearm to a valid CCW carrier without first doing a background check. I think the state passed a law a couple years ago that allowed permit carriers to show their permit at the time of a firearm purchase. The ATF states that some Sheriff’s in Alabama had not run background checks at the time of issuing a permit. The last two guns I bought I filled out the paperwork but the FFL didn’t run the check it was filed away. I had to show my permit and driver license which they made copies of to put on file.

This is why states should go to constitutional carry. Leave it in the hands of sheriffs, it's all about the money!

 

[Evan]

Mueller was a figurehead and not involved in the investigation. He is not familiar with the material or the report. And it showed today. Hack!

You clearly haven't watched. He's being asked questions about specific words, events, sentences, or claims found in the report. You'd have to be a total idiot to answer without first looking at the cited part of the report as anyone with any experience in the law (or as a witness) knows that it's a common tactic to quote something out of context or twist it and then ask for a yes or no answer. If you have to walk-back your answer then it looks bad. If you take your time to make sure then it comes off as dithering.

That's not to say Mueller has impressed or hasn't struggled at times. But it's more complicated than what people see on the surface.

 

[Kory]

You clearly haven't watched. He's being asked questions about specific words, events, sentences, or claims found in the report. You'd have to be a total idiot to answer without first looking at the cited part of the report as anyone with any experience in the law (or as a witness) knows that it's a common tactic to quote something out of context or twist it and then ask for a yes or no answer. If you have to walk-back your answer then it looks bad. If you take your time to make sure then it comes off as dithering.

That's not to say Mueller has impressed or hasn't struggled at times. But it's more complicated than what people see on the surface.

Heck, I can't remember every single reference or citation in my thesis off hand (and I wrote that all myself). And that was only 60 pages!

 

[Matt]

Not true at all. Mueller said he would have charged him if he wasn’t president and said he could charge him after Trump is done being president.

Ahem, did you hear what Mueller just said ?

 

[Evan]

Heck, I can't remember every single reference or citation in my thesis off hand (and I wrote that all myself). And that was only 60 pages!

Haha, exactly. That's the exact kind of example I was thinking about. If you've ever had to do a lengthy research paper or present a 300 deck slide at a business conference then you know it can be extremely difficult to recall the precise wording or a specific detail without looking at your notes or the specific citation.

 

[Matt]

I know you're mad that you can no longer claim that Trump was exonerated or that he escaped indictment because there was a lack of evidence. Mueller explicitly said they didn't indict Trump because of the OLC memo.

Mueller has always kind of searched for the precise word he wants to use. Considering how his answers were so substantially limited by DOJ just a day before his testimony, it's fair to say that his extreme caution and quest to be precise is not something Trump sycophants are able to appreciate.

I find it a bit ironic considering Trump inserts his foot into his own mouth on a seemingly daily basis. "Many fine people on both sides" "I fired him [Comey] because of Russia" -- I could go on and on. Maybe being careful and precise is something Trump should bone up on. Besides, they're questioning a guy about a 500 page report, his ability to answer was sharply limited by DOJ less than 24 hours before his hearing (interesting that Barr waited until the last moment to respond to Mueller when he inquired about any limitations 14 days ago), and the GOP and Democrats both keep asking questions outside his purview, or that have been limited by DOJ. Anyone watching knows that both the Dems and GOP studied the DOJ letter and are craftily trying to get around it's limitations with inventive tactics and questions.

If Mueller came out and was flippant with his responses you'd be attacking him for being reckless. Mueller could save your life tomorrow and you'd still bash him on a daily basis because the god you worship is threatened by him.

He just corrected himself in regards to the OLC opinion. Where can I find more info about the Department of Exoneration ?

 

[gangstonc]

And there are more.

https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-n...ler-report/h_a1cd232666d54b9faa078f7288b50cd9



Attorney General William Barr said that during a March meeting with special counsel Robert Mueller, Mueller "reiterated several times in a group meeting that he was not saying that but for the OLC [Office of Legal Counsel] opinion he would have found obstruction."

Barr said it. That doesn’t match what is in writing and what Mueller has said.

 

[Matt]

Rep. Turner just owned Mueller!

 

[Matt]

Barr said it. That doesn’t match what is in writing and what Mueller has said.

So, Barr is lying ? Of course!