President Trump: Making America Great Again...

[Bo Diddley]

Mueller just said establishing criminal conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt is the standard he used for concluding what he did, but it is not the same thing as "no evidence"

I didn't watch. Did anyone ask him to summarize the evidence he uncovered?

[PaloAltoCougar]

Embedded Tweet

Not to mention a disaster for the US taxpayer.

Disaster? Even if the fines and penalties against Manafort and others (which exceed the cost of the investigation) are never collected, the cost to each US taxpayer is less than a quarter.

[Sleeping in EQ]

It's also possible that Trump's indecorousness is offensive to Mueller. He's about as prissy elitist as it gets. I think he even attends an Anglican Church.

[Commando]

Well, we could continue to discuss whether those actions are illegal and not just "corrupt."

Mueller said he could be charged with obstruction of justice if he was not the president. I guess it's a crime whether or not it actually works.

[creekster]

I didn't say his testimony as spoken was masterful. It didn't need to be because his "testimony is the document."

I repeat, "he was masterful in how he refused to engage with many of the attacks on his character. When time was up, time was up. He didn't try to get in a last jab. He just simple stopped talking. That's the sign of a man with a clear conscious and who was humble enough to submit himself to the stupidity, but willing to do so because he recognized the authority of the committee."

Well this is a confusing position by you. His 'testimony' as you define it apparently includes his report, which he did not read at the hearing, but does not include what he said to the extent it was not in 'the document.' Sure, crystal clear.

Even limiting the review to how he 'refused to engage with many attacks on his character' I think it is easy to conclude that it was not masterful. He did it awkwardly and at times seemed unsure of when he should refuse to answer or answer in some limited way. He came across as confused. If you thought his performance, even in that regard, was masterful then you were already predisposed to see that or you have virtually no experience in watching competent persons give testimony or answer questions.

[Commando]

Disaster? Even if the fines and penalties against Manafort and others (which exceed the cost of the investigation) are never collected, the cost to each US taxpayer is less than a quarter.

THAT'S A DISASTER! I mean- nevermind the private prisons who are charging us $700 a day per detainee at the border for asylees, but I mean it's so important that we keep those people under lock and key...

[creekster]

Mueller said he could be charged with obstruction of justice if he was not the president. I guess it's a crime whether or not it actually works.

Did he? I don't recall him saying that other than that it was POSSIBLE for Trump to be charged if he was not president. Which, of course, is true for everyone who is not president, including you and me.

[frank ryan]

It's also possible that Trump's indecorousness is offensive to Mueller. He's about as prissy elitist as it gets. I think he even attends an Anglican Church.

Is he a regular at the ballet?


It's also delusion to assert Trump is less elitest than Mueller. If by the prissy part, you mean finds him unsavory or unkooth I suppose that's possible. In theory I thought you found Trump to be the same.

[wapiti]

I'm not a lawyer, but Trump's directions to Lewandowski, Sessions, and McGahn seem to be clearly "corrupt" actions to obstruct justice.

Did any of the three follow through with Trump's "directions"?

[frank ryan]

I'm always contemptuous of the lowest common denominator, whether LDS apologetics or this quixotic Russia thing against Trump.

But not the altright or the conspiracary theorists. That you hold them in higher esteem than "the left," (whatever that term actually means anymore) is telling. If you insist on using those terms, the current Trump cultists and apologists have no room to lecture "the left," on religiosity. Consistently defending him takes some serious misplaced faith and unusual ethics.

The Russia thing is not overly idealistic. It's cincical, but less so than the convoluted everyone is conspiring against wonderful Trump.

[Commando]

Did he? I don't recall him saying that other than that it was POSSIBLE for Trump to be charged if he was not president. Which, of course, is true for everyone who is not president, including you and me.

Maybe. That's not how it sounded, though.

Embedded Tweet

[tooblue]

Well this is a confusing position by you. His 'testimony' as you define it apparently includes his report, which he did not read at the hearing, but does not include what he said to the extent it was not in 'the document.' Sure, crystal clear.

Even limiting the review to how he 'refused to engage with many attacks on his character' I think it is easy to conclude that it was not masterful. He did it awkwardly and at times seemed unsure of when he should refuse to answer or answer in some limited way. He came across as confused. If you thought his performance, even in that regard, was masterful then you were already predisposed to see that or you have virtually no experience in watching competent persons give testimony or answer questions.

He clearly stated he was not going to go beyond the document; that the DOJ pointedly directed him not to speak to issues outside of the document. The republicans continually asked him to speak to issues outside the document. The democrats repeated the same lines over and over as read in the document.

This wasn't a criminal preceding, so your criticism rings hollow in addition to betraying your own predisposition.

Meuller did not strike me as confused. In fairness he was given no time to read through on his own specific sentences being quoted to him in each 5 minute episode. He certainly wasn't indignant. So he sat and listened to the grandstanding and masterfully resisted any urge to become defensive, expect in very specific instances.

[creekster]

Maybe. That's not how it sounded, though.

Embedded Tweet

I think you are taking that out of context. I don't think Mueller gave, on balance, anything on that issue more than he did in his report which was, like his testimony, less than clear and far from masterful. But at the beginning of his testimony before the intelligence subcommittee he specifically walked back the idea that he WOULD have charged a crime but for Trump's status as a sitting president.

[creekster]

He clearly stated he was not going to go beyond the document; that the DOJ pointedly directed him not to speak to issues outside of the document. The republicans continually asked him to speak to issues outside the document. The democrats repeated the same lines over and over as read in the document.

This wasn't a criminal preceding, so your criticism rings hollow in addition to betraying your own predisposition.

Meuller did not strike me as confused. In fairness he was given no time to read through on his own specific sentences being quoted to him in each 5 minute episode. He certainly wasn't indignant. So he sat and listened to the grandstanding and masterfully resisted any urge to become defensive, expect in very specific instances.

My predisposition is that I expect competent people to perform competently and I expect highly competent people to perform masterfully. Mueller did neither. But, hey, if you watched that and thought he was masterful, even in some limited respect, good for you.

[Uncle Ted]

Maybe. That's not how it sounded, though.

Embedded Tweet

This is no good... Drumpf is not going to leave office until 2024 and by then the dumb Dems will have forgotten all about any of this and will be obsessed with trying to impeach Pence.


Sent from my iPhone and not some cheap Chinese crap running Android spyware