President Trump: Making America Great Again...

[Uncle Ted]

And just like that... the Dems are turn on Mueller:

Embedded Tweet

Y'all need to listen to Michael Moore.

[frank ryan]

I was referring to the political fight for impeachment. Not providing a smoking gun is one thing. But he was apparently slow and halting in some of his answers. If the democrats were hoping his testimony would move the political 'will' needle towards impeachment, it doesn't sound like it did.

I don’t think the needle moved much. But it didn’t hurt the cause either.

[tooblue]

Attempted obstruction is not a crime. It's just not. I swear, the left is a religion. It is.

https://www.justice.gov/jm/criminal-...stice-offenses

"Although 'endeavor' might be thought of as a synonym for "attempt," the Supreme Court has concluded that 'endeavor' is broader than 'attempt.' United States v. Russell, 255 U.S. 138 (1921). In Russell, the Supreme Court held:

The word of the section is "endeavor," and by using it the section got rid of the technicalities which might be urged as besetting the word "attempt," and it describes any effort or essay to accomplish the evil purpose that the section was enacted to prevent . . . . The section . . . is not directed at success in corrupting a juror but at the "endeavor" to do so. Experimental approaches to the corruption of a juror are the "endeavor" of the section.

... It follows that an endeavor to obstruct justice need not be successful to be criminal."

[creekster]

I don't think Frank has 'shifted.' It's just that SU has- with no small effort- for YEARS on this site played the part of this Super Skeptic, Ultra Principled Truth Seeker and how he's coming out as just another Cheeto Goblin.

Just like that noted conservative hack Alan Dershowitz.

[creekster]

I'm just being a civil liberties lawyer. I'm no different than I've ever been. I'm just saying that that I'm very skeptical that what Trump did is a crime or that he'll ever be indicted whether as president or otherwise.

Impeachment is another issue. It doesn't need a crime. That is what Mueller meant. But he should not even have gone there. If it's not his role then why did he say anything? Why all these allusions?

If he truly hated today it's his karma. He should have stayed out of the political issue of impeachment. And clearly he only did it because he had his own political ambitions. Mueller is such a phony.

The House can impeach Trump for all I care. They can do it. They have a majority. But there will never be a conviction. Not even all democratic senators would vote for conviction.

And I do tend to agree with Pelosi that there would be a backlash. So, what political purpose?

I doubt any of you are lawyers who are reacting to my post. I you are, trying thinking like one.

I think it was either Mueller's political ambitions or the political ambitions of those on his staff, because after watching most of his testimony today it seems likely that he did not write all, most and maybe not any, of the report.

[creekster]

I just donated to a GOP candidate for governor, so I suppose I'm less partisan. That's a first for me although, I've never voted straight party in my life, but I suspect you have.

ANd what is the basis for your suspicion? Because he disagrees with you (sort of, barely disagrees) here? And who cares if he has done so? What relevance is that? That you are therefore a better person and so therefore must be correct here? Whatever.

[Sleeping in EQ]

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

[Commando]

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

Nailed it. Not much more to discuss, is there?

[falafel]

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

Nailed it. Not much more to discuss, is there?

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

[tooblue]

I think it was either Mueller's political ambitions or the political ambitions of those on his staff, because after watching most of his testimony today it seems likely that he did not write all, most and maybe not any, of the report.

That appears to be the narrative du jour but having listened to much of the testimony I don't agree. It's a lazy narrative advanced by people tuning in thinking they were going to witness Law and Order type theatrics—especially the republicans on the panel. Hell, the representative from Pennsylvania thought he was a real life JAG Tom Cruz and that he was going to have his "you can't handle the truth" moment.

Today's spectacle reminded me of a thesis defence. Any one who has been through such an experience knows what I am talking about. It is not possible for the sharpest of minds to instantly recall what they wrote on every page in a document containing tens of thousands of words.

What was clear is Mueller was very careful not to contravene the direction given to him by the DOJ. He stuck fastidiously to what was written in the document as he said he would. In contrast to a thesis defence, he was given no time to actually confirm that what was often being read to him was actually what was written, leaving him therefore rightly guarded.

Where I thought he was masterful was 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 simply 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.

[SeattleUte]

I think it was either Mueller's political ambitions or the political ambitions of those on his staff, because after watching most of his testimony today it seems likely that he did not write all, most and maybe not any, of the report.

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.

[SeattleUte]

I think since Trump became president Godwin's rule is suspended. Bear in mind that the Reign of Terror in France and Russia and Hitler's liquidation of his political enemies all proceeded by criminalizing politics--treason invariably the offense--and conducting show trials.

[tooblue]

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.

Wow, you are really threatened by Mueller's comportment. You're positively catty!

[creekster]

That appears to be the narrative du jour but having listened to much of the testimony I don't agree. It's a lazy narrative advanced by people tuning in thinking they were going to witness Law and Order type theatrics—especially the republicans on the panel. Hell, the representative from Pennsylvania thought he was a real life JAG Tom Cruz and that he was going to have his "you can't handle the truth," moment.

Today's spectacle reminded me of a thesis defence. Any one who has been through such an experience knows what I am talking about. It is not possible for the sharpest of minds to instantly recall what they wrote in a document containing tens of thousands of words.

What was clear is Mueller was very careful not to contravene the direction given to him by the DOJ. He stuck fastidiously to what was written in the document as he said he would. In contrast to a thesis defence, he was given no time to actually confirm that what was often being read to him was actually what was written, leaving him therefore rightly guarded.

Where I thought he was masterful was 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.

You truly believed Mueller was masterful today? I find that hard to believe. He wasn't masterful in any respect at all. The topics and areas of inquiry today not a surprise and could be largely if not completely prepared for by Mueller and his staff. Moreover, the report is the culmination of all of Mueller's professional attention and work since May 2017. I am very surprised that Mueller seemed so unconnected and out of touch. I agree Mueller was not incompetent, but he was far, far from masterful. And I have no experience with a thesis defense but I have seen a lot of lawyers prepare for a lot of trials and learn thousands of pages of materials and transcripts well enough to instantly respond to witness testimony occurring before them. It is easily possible to be familiar enough with a report that you supposedly wrote to respond to the sort of grandstanding partisan speeches to which he listened. Mueller's performance was not good. He was honorable and, I think, did his best to be fair, but his testimony was not masterful in any respect.

[tooblue]

You truly believed Mueller was masterful today? I find that hard to believe. He wasn't masterful in any respect at all. The topics and areas of inquiry today not a surprise and could be largely if not completely prepared for by Mueller and his staff. Moreover, the report is the culmination of all of Mueller's professional attention and work since May 2017. I am very surprised that Mueller seemed so unconnected and out of touch. I agree Mueller was not incompetent, but he was far, far from masterful. And I have no experience with a thesis defense but I have seen a lot of lawyers prepare for a lot of trials and learn thousands of pages of materials and transcripts well enough to instantly respond to witness testimony occurring before them. It is easily possible to be familiar enough with a report that you supposedly wrote to respond to the sort of grandstanding partisan speeches to which he listened. Mueller's performance was not good. He was honorable and, I think, did his best to be fair, but his testimony was not masterful in any respect.

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 simply 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."