Jump to content
Required Reading for any Longhorn ×

The Robert Mueller Investigation

Hugo Stiglitz

By Hugo Stiglitz
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 34.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Hugo Stiglitz

    3238

  • Anastasis

    2088

  • David Dennison

    1559

  • triplehorn

    1384

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Goredho
Goredho

Just to make sure I have the alternative facts straight...  Our government -- but I'm guessing only the deep state part of it --- is now guilty of torturing a poor, naive Russian exchange student who

Incredulity
Incredulity

liberals suddenly being terrified of Russia and manic for election integrity is just pure comedy gold.

Chooky
Chooky

I don't believe for a moment that any of this is entertaining to you.  I think it gives you a bit of anxiety knowing that your best weapon against a group who you despise is a bumbling fraud as a busi

Posted Images

hayden_horn

hayden_horn 11365

Posted
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.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TexArcher

TexArcher 38076

Posted
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
Link to comment
Share on other sites
jimmyjazz

jimmyjazz 46227

Posted
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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
hayden_horn

hayden_horn 11365

Posted
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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Asithappens

Asithappens 974

Posted
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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
FondrenRoad

FondrenRoad 4378

Posted
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
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Anastasis

Anastasis 23491

Posted
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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
hayden_horn

hayden_horn 11365

Posted
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
Link to comment
Share on other sites
jimmyjazz

jimmyjazz 46227

Posted
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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hugo Stiglitz

Hugo Stiglitz 23367

Posted
  • Author
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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...