First Charges filed by Mueller

User avatar
Wabash
Posts: 24570
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2011 7:29 am
Has thanked: 2 times

Re: First Charges filed by Mueller

Post by Wabash » Wed Jul 24, 2019 3:19 pm

Red must not have watched any of the hearings. His remarks are what is being stated by conservative punditry.
They told me if I voted for Hillary Clinton the president would be emotional, impulsive, and unpredictable. They were right. I voted for Hillary Clinton and got a president that is emotional, impulsive, and unpredictable.

RPW
Posts: 6001
Joined: Wed Aug 26, 2009 1:11 pm
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: First Charges filed by Mueller

Post by RPW » Wed Jul 24, 2019 4:11 pm

Red wrote: The next time somebody speaks about how dumb Dan Quayle is/was, I will remind them, they have Mueller. What very low IQ idiot he is.
You are not in a position to question the IQ of anyone.

And whats up with your name being in yellow?
I am The Voice of Reason

User avatar
Wabash
Posts: 24570
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2011 7:29 am
Has thanked: 2 times

Re: First Charges filed by Mueller

Post by Wabash » Wed Jul 24, 2019 4:18 pm

If the only thing keeping someone out of jail is that they are president. They shouldn't be president.
They told me if I voted for Hillary Clinton the president would be emotional, impulsive, and unpredictable. They were right. I voted for Hillary Clinton and got a president that is emotional, impulsive, and unpredictable.

Ebell
Posts: 2
Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2019 8:23 am

Re: First Charges filed by Mueller

Post by Ebell » Wed Jul 24, 2019 5:21 pm

Wabash wrote:Red must not have watched any of the hearings. His remarks are what is being stated by conservative punditry.
Yeah....."conservative punditry"

Red
Posts: 17717
Joined: Wed Nov 28, 2007 4:33 pm

Robert Mueller

Post by Red » Wed Jul 24, 2019 5:56 pm

I would like to take this time to apologize to Mr. Mueller. I really do feel bad for him. He was not fit to be the Special prosecutor and he was not fit to testify today. He did not lead the fraudulent investigation. he was led by the nose by disgustingly corrupt democratic lawyers. Mueller is a Viet Nam vet and have done good things for this country. It's a shame he will go down in history as goat. He should take his wife and go into seclusion. There is a reason they call Hillary a storm. She ruined his and many other lives. And you democratic....feel proud.
Liberalism is like an out-of-control 5 year old at McDonalds. All the talking to and admonishment won't make a difference. They have no concept of right or wrong, they are nothing more than narcissists.

User avatar
John Q. Public
Site Admin
Posts: 19754
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2006 5:56 am
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 4 times

Re: First Charges filed by Mueller

Post by John Q. Public » Wed Jul 24, 2019 6:39 pm

He did sound old but I don't know what Moore was expecting. He was a witness and a witness's answers are only as good as the questions.

That said, some of the answers in the Intelligence Committee hearing were pretty good. And alarming. And damning.



And Gym should really lay off the Red Bull. I've never seen anyone fidget so much.
Don't look at me, I just work here.

broman
Posts: 3836
Joined: Sat Jun 02, 2012 9:52 am

Re: First Charges filed by Mueller

Post by broman » Wed Jul 24, 2019 7:05 pm

Instead of rebutting the above sequence of events between Mueller and Schiff, we get to chase the ole' man Mueller didn't really write or read the report, rabbit down the deep state hole.

Something like, Trump didn't seek information on future wikileaks dumps. Trump didn't try to build a Trump Tower in Moscow. Trump did not give false statements about the Trump Tower meeting. He didn't have knowledge of the payment to the porn star and the playboy model. Mueller and his team made it all up. Something........

User avatar
John Q. Public
Site Admin
Posts: 19754
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2006 5:56 am
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 4 times

Re: First Charges filed by Mueller

Post by John Q. Public » Wed Jul 24, 2019 8:02 pm

I liked the furor over "exonerate" not being a legal term. Trump fans are saying Mueller made a "deer in headlights" look. However, I know from experience that it and the "that's the stupidest question anyone's ever asked me" look are often confused.
Don't look at me, I just work here.

User avatar
Wabash
Posts: 24570
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2011 7:29 am
Has thanked: 2 times

Re: First Charges filed by Mueller

Post by Wabash » Wed Jul 24, 2019 8:17 pm

:yeahthat:
They told me if I voted for Hillary Clinton the president would be emotional, impulsive, and unpredictable. They were right. I voted for Hillary Clinton and got a president that is emotional, impulsive, and unpredictable.

User avatar
Wabash
Posts: 24570
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2011 7:29 am
Has thanked: 2 times

Re: First Charges filed by Mueller

Post by Wabash » Wed Jul 24, 2019 8:27 pm

Red wrote:I would like to take this time to apologize to Mr. Mueller. I really do feel bad for him. He was not fit to be the Special prosecutor and he was not fit to testify today. He did not lead the fraudulent investigation. he was led by the nose by disgustingly corrupt democratic lawyers. Mueller is a Viet Nam vet and have done good things for this country. It's a shame he will go down in history as goat. He should take his wife and go into seclusion. There is a reason they call Hillary a storm. She ruined his and many other lives. And you democratic....feel proud.
Can anyone translate this?
They told me if I voted for Hillary Clinton the president would be emotional, impulsive, and unpredictable. They were right. I voted for Hillary Clinton and got a president that is emotional, impulsive, and unpredictable.

User avatar
Vilepagan
Posts: 12551
Joined: Wed Jan 13, 2010 8:07 am

Re: First Charges filed by Mueller

Post by Vilepagan » Thu Jul 25, 2019 2:50 am

Wabash wrote: Can anyone translate this?
Have a comment on what Red said? Trouble reading today?
There is no fire like passion, there is no shark like hatred, there is no snare like folly, there is no torrent like greed. - The Dhammapada

User avatar
Vilepagan
Posts: 12551
Joined: Wed Jan 13, 2010 8:07 am

Re: First Charges filed by Mueller

Post by Vilepagan » Thu Jul 25, 2019 2:55 am

Red wrote: Another good day for Trump.
Which part was better...the part where Mueller talked about the trump campaign welcoming help from the Russians or the part where trump lied about the payments to the porn star.

Which of those actions do you admire and support? Which of those actions do you think are supported by your friends the "normal decent Americans" you talk about so often?
There is no fire like passion, there is no shark like hatred, there is no snare like folly, there is no torrent like greed. - The Dhammapada

User avatar
Vilepagan
Posts: 12551
Joined: Wed Jan 13, 2010 8:07 am

Re: First Charges filed by Mueller

Post by Vilepagan » Thu Jul 25, 2019 2:58 am

Ebell wrote: Yeah....."conservative punditry"
Well a-holes come in all shapes and political views...like those commenting on Mueller instead of his testimony.
There is no fire like passion, there is no shark like hatred, there is no snare like folly, there is no torrent like greed. - The Dhammapada

Luca
Posts: 6667
Joined: Tue Jul 29, 2008 7:39 pm

Re: First Charges filed by Mueller

Post by Luca » Fri Jul 26, 2019 4:47 pm

I don’t have as much free time as some of you evidently do, so I apologize for my delayed response to your posts from a few days ago. Also, I don’t have the patience to cut and paste every other sentence and respond to it so, in the aggregate, pagan:

I was referring to "conspiracies" in general. If they cannot be proven, then the zealots resort to claiming that the fact that the conspiracy cannot be disproven is prima facie evidence that it exists. That is not how either logic or the legal system works. This is referred to as the argumentum ad ignorantium, or "argument from ignorance."

One would not expect the report to conclude that there were no high crimes or misdemeanors regarding "obstruction" that would justify impeachment, since that was not its purpose. The purpose of the investigation was to find out whether there was "collusion" with a foreign government to influence the election. There wasn’t any. If it is decided to launch another investigation into whether there was obstruction of the investigation of this crime-that-did-not-occur, well lotsa luck on that one too. You think you have another Dreyfuss moment on your hands when in fact all you have done is hitched your wagon to another loser.

As I predicted, nothing did come "of the pending Mueller hearings other than additional smoke". And yes, this whole thing is over for all practical purposes. Now I understand there is a push to have yet another hearing with the actual investigators hired by Mueller. Because, presumably, Mueller obstructed the investigation into the obstruction of the investigation of the crime-that-did-not-occur. Laughable.
John Q. Public wrote: And, no, there doesn't have to be sufficient evidence to charge the obstructor with a crime to charge him with obstruction. In most cases that only shows that the obstruction worked and actually makes the prosecution's case stronger.
I couldn’t ignore this one, JQ. In other words, "The absence of evidence for the crime only serves to demonstrate the ingenuity of the accused.”

User avatar
Wabash
Posts: 24570
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2011 7:29 am
Has thanked: 2 times

Re: First Charges filed by Mueller

Post by Wabash » Fri Jul 26, 2019 5:35 pm

It's obvious you did not read the report. If you had, you would know an abundance of evidence was presented......Wabash
They told me if I voted for Hillary Clinton the president would be emotional, impulsive, and unpredictable. They were right. I voted for Hillary Clinton and got a president that is emotional, impulsive, and unpredictable.

User avatar
John Q. Public
Site Admin
Posts: 19754
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2006 5:56 am
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 4 times

Re: First Charges filed by Mueller

Post by John Q. Public » Fri Jul 26, 2019 7:24 pm

Luca wrote: I couldn’t ignore this one, JQ. In other words, "The absence of evidence for the crime only serves to demonstrate the ingenuity of the accused.”
To quote Mr. Mueller, "True."
Luca wrote: One would not expect the report to conclude that there were no high crimes or misdemeanors regarding "obstruction" that would justify impeachment, since that was not its purpose. The purpose of the investigation was to find out whether there was "collusion" with a foreign government to influence the election. There wasn’t any. If it is decided to launch another investigation into whether there was obstruction of the investigation of this crime-that-did-not-occur, well lotsa luck on that one too.
Didn't read the report, huh? 182 pages on just that. The whole second half. And it found eight instances of it, four slam-dunkable, even with redactions.
trump obstruction charges.png
trump obstruction charges legend.png
But they're criminal offenses, which the President* can't be charged with while he's in office because it would conflict with his "Article II responsibilities" and with Congress' "Article I responsibilities," as the OLC guideline euphemistically refers to it. And which Congress just announced it will be holding hearings on.

Seriously. If you're going to talk about the report you really should try to familiarize yourself with it. Benjamin Wittes did a very good rundown of it on the Lawfare Blog. It's long but it's much shorter (and more readable) than Mueller's version.
Don't look at me, I just work here.

User avatar
John Q. Public
Site Admin
Posts: 19754
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2006 5:56 am
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 4 times

Re: First Charges filed by Mueller

Post by John Q. Public » Fri Jul 26, 2019 7:46 pm

Interesting, though, that Luca just demonstrated the efficacy of Mueller's testimony for the rule of law/Constitution fans. He's a smart guy and he still didn't seem to know that half of the report was about Trump's very obvious obstruction.
Don't look at me, I just work here.

User avatar
Fordama
Posts: 18155
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 3:12 pm

Re: First Charges filed by Mueller

Post by Fordama » Fri Jul 26, 2019 7:59 pm

It's right in the report as plain as day--Trump attempted to obstruct justice multiple times. The only way anyone doesn't know that is that they didn't read the report and have only relied on media sources that are very friendly to the president.
This country of the United States was not built by those who waited and rested and wished to look behind them.---JFK

User avatar
Vilepagan
Posts: 12551
Joined: Wed Jan 13, 2010 8:07 am

Re: First Charges filed by Mueller

Post by Vilepagan » Sat Jul 27, 2019 3:38 am

Luca wrote:I was referring to "conspiracies" in general. If they cannot be proven, then the zealots resort to claiming that the fact that the conspiracy cannot be disproven is prima facie evidence that it exists. That is not how either logic or the legal system works. This is referred to as the argumentum ad ignorantium, or "argument from ignorance."
I wasn't referring to conspiracies in general, I was referring specifically to one conspiracy theory in particular. The one where multiple evil people and nefarious security agencies all conspired to unseat the duly-elected president. You know, the one repeated endlessly by the idiot in the Oval Office and aped by ignorant people here.

One might conclude that you agree with this nonsense since you can't be bothered to denounce it or even mention it in your reply, but here you are saying such theories are "ignorant"...hard to know what you think Luca.

Perhaps you could be bothered to make a short post telling us where you stand on this question.
There is no fire like passion, there is no shark like hatred, there is no snare like folly, there is no torrent like greed. - The Dhammapada

User avatar
Vilepagan
Posts: 12551
Joined: Wed Jan 13, 2010 8:07 am

Re: First Charges filed by Mueller

Post by Vilepagan » Sat Jul 27, 2019 3:48 am

Luca wrote: One would not expect the report to conclude that there were no high crimes or misdemeanors regarding "obstruction" that would justify impeachment, since that was not its purpose.
Talk about an "argument from ignorance". Read the report, or failing that, read something about the report by someone who has actually read it and isn't Sean Hannity.
The purpose of the investigation was to find out whether there was "collusion" with a foreign government to influence the election.
Your "collusion" argument is a red herring. The word you're looking for is "conspiracy".
If it is decided to launch another investigation into whether there was obstruction of the investigation of this crime-that-did-not-occur, well lotsa luck on that one too.
We don't need another investigation. This one found much evidence of obstruction, which you would know if you knew anything at all about what's in Mueller's report.

On a side note you seem to be implying that their could be no "obstruction" if there was no underlying conspiracy. I'm not sure where you heard that one, but I can assure you it's complete nonsense.
There is no fire like passion, there is no shark like hatred, there is no snare like folly, there is no torrent like greed. - The Dhammapada

Post Reply