Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

initial thoughts: 

republicans going full on histrionic junkyard dog against mueller is an extremely bad look. i especially think the not-so-veiled accusations of partisanship are clearly aimed at donald j trump and his 12 ANGRY DEMOCRATS tweets, and i think that will be to the shame of their legacy. they could actually move the questioning away from trump toward russia and actually look somewhat patriotic while somewhat cleverly steering the testimony away from trump. 

instead they are all in on strojk ,or however you spell his name.

but hoo boy, did louie gohmert fucking deliver with his spreading feces on the walls act. so did jim jordan and matt gaetz. what a selection of fucking clowns.

 

Posted
1 minute ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Buzzfeed publishing that Dossier a few years back really broke the brains of the Republicans.

Plus there's all the cognitive dissonance created by believing the Bible is the word of God and knowing it's bullshit at the same time.

  • Like 1
Posted
3 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Buzzfeed publishing that Dossier a few years back really broke the brains of the Republicans.

And apparently the brains of a few people within the FBI.

Posted
Just now, hayden_horn said:

president threatening a witness during testimony is totally normal:

 

Well, Mueller testified that he was not there as a candidate, so bring it, I guess. 

Posted
Just now, hayden_horn said:

president threatening a witness during testimony is totally normal:

 

"It has been reported".  Jesus, Donald.  We know you're watching.  No need to obfuscate.

Posted

You idiot. He made the decision on conspiracy because there was NO evidence to be charged. But he CAN be charged for obstruction so he cannot make that decision because he's the president.

Posted
Just now, sachick said:

You idiot. He made the decision on conspiracy because there was NO evidence to be charged. But he CAN be charged for obstruction so he cannot make that decision because he's the president.

Yeah, that seemed pretty obvious.  Who was questioning?  My feed just shows Mueller.

Posted
Just now, jimmyjazz said:

Yeah, that seemed pretty obvious.  Who was questioning?  My feed just shows Mueller.

you should switch to CSPAN.  They have a side by side. 

Posted
Just now, Red Five said:


What was it? I’ve been in and out.

In Effect:

(R) Question: Can the President be indicted after he leaves office?

Mueller: Yes

Moment was more impactful than my summary

Posted
Just now, Red Five said:


What was it? I’ve been in and out.

basically that you cannot indict a sitting president for obstruction, but you can once he leaves office. and it happened right at the gavel, so the (R) asking couldn't follow up and repair any damage.

Posted
Just now, jimmyjazz said:

What was that interruption?  Why couldn't he answer about his thoughts re: the "1000 prosecutors" or whatever?

The Pub intentionally cut him off before he gave a definitive yes answer to that. 

Posted
Just now, FondrenRoad said:

The Pub intentionally cut him off before he gave a definitive yes answer to that. 

yeah, that was an intentional interruption, and mueller doesn't seem to give a shit about answering specific partisan questions anyways.

Posted
1 minute ago, Anastasis said:

What a total garbage clown show. 

What did you expect? 

This is how the game is played, and Mueller is doing a credible job, imo. 

Trump is slime. Everyone who can see and think for themselves knows this. Mueller's testimony won't change any minds or provide any smoking guns. Again, imo.

Posted
2 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

The Pub intentionally cut him off before he gave a definitive yes answer to that. 

NAder gaveled him and Bob didn't want to answer. 

Posted
1 minute ago, hayden_horn said:

yeah, that was an intentional interruption, and mueller doesn't seem to give a shit about answering specific partisan questions anyways.

It's not really partisan. It's a simple question that is all that really needs to be asked. You don't need any of the rest of this shitshow. Just one yes/no question. 

"We understand that a sitting President can not be indicted while in office.  Given the results of the investigation, would Trump have been indicted for obstruction of justice had he not been in office?"

If yes, start impeachment proceedings.  If no, give it up and wait for Trump to go down on fraud charges in NY in 2021. Or impeach based on those charges if you want to. 

  • Like 1
Posted
Just now, jimmyjazz said:

I didn't get a clear feeling the question about charging POTUS after he leaves office was referring to this specific POTUS or more of a hypothetical.

It was related to the office and the OLC determination, but the soundbite will still be deployed on twitter to suggest that he was referring to this specific case. 

Posted
1 minute ago, Anastasis said:

It was related to the office and the OLC determination, but the soundbite will still be deployed on twitter to suggest that he was referring to this specific case. 

because the (R) rep was extremely inartful and reckless with the verbiage and timing of his questions at the close there.

  • Like 1
Posted
1 minute ago, Anastasis said:

It was related to the office and the OLC determination, but the soundbite will still be deployed on twitter to suggest that he was referring to this specific case. 

I don't think the line of questioning was clear enough to draw that conclusion (or the opposite).  But yes, the answer will be weaponized.

Posted
Just now, jimmyjazz said:

I didn't get a clear feeling the question about charging POTUS after he leaves office was referring to this specific POTUS or more of a hypothetical.

And this will be the Fox News spin.

The last few pages of Volume 2 makes it pretty clear Trump will be liable for obstruction crimes once he leaves office. 



×
×
  • Create New...