• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Predictions for mueller's testimony

Page 7 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Maxima1 said:
Mueller had a choice here on what to say. He blew it. Barr literally handed him the opportunity to suggest a charging decision to the committee and expose Barr for not asking him why he wasn't making a charging decision when he turned in the report.
Click to expand...

Mueller was not going to testify to anyone's satisfaction including mine and yours. What I did see is an opening for impeachment so large that a bus could be driven through it sidewise. There is no longer any justification for Pelosi to hold up impeachment proceedings. Further investigations can continue before and during impeachment. Will Nancy step up and strike while the iron is hot? I'd bet against it, but perhaps she will.
 
Hayabusa Rider said:
Mueller was not going to testify to anyone's satisfaction including mine and yours. What I did see is an opening for impeachment so large that a bus could be driven through it sidewise. There is no longer any justification for Pelosi to hold up impeachment proceedings. Further investigations can continue before and during impeachment. Will Nancy step up and strike while the iron is hot? I'd bet against it, but perhaps she will.
Click to expand...

That's true but that was also true before mueller's testimony.
 
HomerJS said:
Have Republicans refuted any of the specific charges?
Click to expand...

Which charges again? The ones without sufficient evidence to bring? No one is refuting the charges that Clinton, members of the DNC, and senior officials of the DOJ colluding with foreign nationals to interfere with the federal presidential election process.
 
brandonbull said:
Which charges again? The ones without sufficient evidence to bring? No one is refuting the charges that Clinton, members of the DNC, and senior officials of the DOJ colluding with foreign nationals to interfere with the federal presidential election process.
Click to expand...
You're silly.
 
ivwshane said:
I'm giving my opinion on what I witnessed, that fact that you call it defeat says more about you than it does about me.

Unlike you, I don't have any ties or loyalty to the Democrat party, so my view is from a perspective unclouded by partisanship.

Maybe round two will be better but round one was, by Democrats own standards, a failure.
Click to expand...

So, you're not a Democrat but you feel you can speak for Democrats? That's more than a little presumptuous.
 
Hayabusa Rider said:
Mueller was not going to testify to anyone's satisfaction including mine and yours. What I did see is an opening for impeachment so large that a bus could be driven through it sidewise. There is no longer any justification for Pelosi to hold up impeachment proceedings. Further investigations can continue before and during impeachment. Will Nancy step up and strike while the iron is hot? I'd bet against it, but perhaps she will.
Click to expand...

Unlike the Liberal drones, Mueller built a wall to stop that illegal activity from happening. Any hope of the Dems having any legit reason for impeachment was destroyed by Mueller. In no way did he support obstruction conclusions presented by the Dems, but added that evidence and not policy is why Trump was not indicted.
 
What exactly was Mueller referring to here? It comes across as "both sides!".

Mueller says Russian hacking was intended to help Trump, but Clinton "was subject to much the same behavior"
 
Jhhnn said:
So, you're not a Democrat but you feel you can speak for Democrats? That's more than a little presumptuous.
Click to expand...

It seems presumptuous that you can speak for anyone at all, including him.
brandonbull said:
Unlike the Liberal drones, Mueller built a wall to stop that illegal activity from happening. Any hope of the Dems having any legit reason for impeachment was destroyed by Mueller. In no way did he support obstruction conclusions presented by the Dems, but added that evidence and not policy is why Trump was not indicted.
Click to expand...

What actually happened what that Mueller would not charge because of guidelines and explicitly said that Trump was not exonerated. Perhaps you recall that if Mueller said that if he was confident that Trump was exonerated he'd say so? It seems that reality was quite the opposite.
 
brandonbull said:
Unlike the Liberal drones, Mueller built a wall to stop that illegal activity from happening. Any hope of the Dems having any legit reason for impeachment was destroyed by Mueller. In no way did he support obstruction conclusions presented by the Dems, but added that evidence and not policy is why Trump was not indicted.
Click to expand...

I see you remain profoundly illiterate.

serious question: do you honestly think that the people that use this forum are as abjectly retarded as the people that populate the moron forums that feed you this nonsense?
 
Hayabusa Rider said:
It seems presumptuous that you can speak for anyone at all, including him.


What actually happened what that Mueller would not charge because of guidelines and explicitly said that Trump was not exonerated. Perhaps you recall that if Mueller said that if he was confident that Trump was exonerated he'd say so? It seems that reality was quite the opposite.
Click to expand...


Mueller has just walked back what he told Ted Lieu that he the president could have been charged with obstruction were it not for the OLC opinion: "We did not reach a determination as to whether the president committed a crime."

They have to find sufficient evidence to bring charges, not find sufficient evidence not to bring charges.
 
I think for me the most important thing is that trump can be prosecuted after he leaves office. If a democratic president is elected in 2020, they can simply get rid of Barr and instruct the DOJ to do so. I would certainly vote for that.
 
zinfamous said:
I see you remain profoundly illiterate.

serious question: do you honestly think that the people that use this forum are as abjectly retarded as the people that populate the moron forums that feed you this nonsense?
Click to expand...

By asking that, you answer the question about if stupid people know that they are stupid.
 
Last edited:
brandonbull said:
Unlike the Liberal drones, Mueller built a wall to stop that illegal activity from happening. Any hope of the Dems having any legit reason for impeachment was destroyed by Mueller. In no way did he support obstruction conclusions presented by the Dems, but added that evidence and not policy is why Trump was not indicted.
Click to expand...

lolwut

“So it’s fair to say the President tried to protect himself by asking staff to falsify records relevant to an ongoing investigation,” Richmond said.

“I would say that’s generally a summary,” Mueller answered.

Richmond also asked if Trump’s attempts to get McGahn to create a false record were connected to the President’s concerns about Mueller’s inquiry into whether he committed obstruction of justice.

“I believe that to be true,” Mueller said.
Click to expand...

By all means explain to us why directing your staff to falsify documents in order to thwart an investigation into yourself is not obstruction of justice.

Right there, from that quote alone you should be SCREAMING for impeachment. Do you want to revise your position?
 
brandonbull said:
Mueller has just walked back what he told Ted Lieu that he the president could have been charged with obstruction were it not for the OLC opinion: "We did not reach a determination as to whether the president committed a crime."

They have to find sufficient evidence to bring charges, not find sufficient evidence not to bring charges.
Click to expand...

Show the quote that where Mueller said there was not sufficient evidence and that guidelines were not a factor.
 
zinfamous said:
I see you remain profoundly illiterate.

serious question: do you honestly think that the people that use this forum are as abjectly retarded as the people that populate the moron forums that feed you this nonsense?
Click to expand...

You spelled disingenuous piece of shit liar wrong...

It's like a retard looking in a kaleidoscope while riding in the back seat of the short yellow bus...

Literally everything these piece of shit liars post is just more lies easily disproved by actual words that were spoken today... Again...

Trump is a criminal who needs to be in jail, not the WH. Not amount of fluffing and full court press Internet disinformation campaigns will change the Truth...
 
Maxima1 said:
What exactly was Mueller referring to here? It comes across as "both sides!".

Mueller says Russian hacking was intended to help Trump, but Clinton "was subject to much the same behavior"
Click to expand...

Early on in Russia's meddling their goal was to sew chaos and to divide the country. Therefore the Russia's used tactics that were pro Clinton, pro trump, and pro Bernie, as well as tactics that were anti the above people. The basically used anything to sew discord in America.

However the Russians didn't gain any traction on the Democrat side and focused most of their attention to being pro trump since the right was more gullible to such propaganda.
 
MomentsofSanity said:
Now here's a shocker. Fox News coverage is limited to "Mueller needed to have questions repeated" and the entire article just discusses the GOP reps asking him questions. Nothing of any substance at all.
Click to expand...

Fox News.... nothing of any substance at all.
Yeah, kind of figured.
 
Jhhnn said:
He said he operated within the OLC guidelines preventing him making such a determination.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1154044886057775105
Click to expand...

Totally ignoring his own boss that he could have made a charging decision. This is why Barr pursued that avenue. He was confident it wouldn't blowback because he knew who Mueller was. Barr is like the typical ebay buyer who scams a seller into giving a partial or full refund without a return; the seller just needed to repeat "return for refund" to call the bluff.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top