Mueller Hearings

[Spirit of Light]

He is impeached, then what?

Jail maybe

 

[Martin]

I've seen Mueller yoghurt in Tesco. Is there a problem with it?

 

[shmogie]

Rep. Jeffries: Let me refer you to page 87 and 88 of volume 2 where you conclude the attempt to remove the special counsel would qualify as an obstructive act if it would naturally obstruct the investigation and any grand-jury proceedings that might flow from the inquiry. Correct?
Mueller: Yes.
Jeffries: Your report found on page 89, volume 2, that substantial evidence indicates that by June 17, the president knew his conduct was under investigation by a federal prosecutor who would present any evidence of federal crimes to a grand jury. True?
Mueller: True.
Jeffries: Is it fair to say the president viewed the special counsel’s investigation as adverse to his own interest?
Mueller: I think that generally is true.
Jeffries: The investigation found evidence, quote, “that the president knew that he should not have directed Don McGahn to fire the special counsel.” Correct?
Mueller: Where do you have that quote?
Jeffries: Page 90, volume 2. “There’s evidence that the president knew he should not have made those calls to McGahn,” closed quote.
Mueller: I see that. Yes, that’s accurate.
Mueller: Let me just say, if I might, I don’t subscribe necessarily to your—the way you analyzed that. I’m not saying it’s out of the ballpark, but I’m not supportive of that analytical charge

Mueller: The only thing I want to add is going through the elements with you does not mean I subscribe to the—what you’re trying to prove through those elements.
Rep. Lieu: I’d like to ask you the reason, again, that you did not indict Donald Trump is because of OLC opinion stating that you cannot indict a sitting president, correct?
Mueller: That is correct
Mueller (correcting himself): That is not the correct way to say it. As we say in the report and as I said at the opening, we did not reach a determination as to whether the president committed a crime.

Rep. Buck: Could you charge the president with a crime after he left office?
Mueller: Yes.
Buck: You believe that he committed—you could charge the president of the United States with obstruction of justice after he left office?
Mueller: Yes.

Sorry, but that doesn´t say what you think it does. The ¨could charge ¨ was addressing the DOJ policy, i.e. if a crime existed, you could make a charge after he left office. It was not a crime exists, therefore I could charge him after he left office.

Otherwise, Mueller is lying in the very snippet you posted, the conclusion of the report is in error.

 

[The Reverend Bob]

Sorry, but that doesn´t say what you think it does. The ¨could charge ¨ was addressing the DOJ policy, i.e. if a crime existed, you could make a charge after he left office. It was not a crime exists, therefore I could charge him after he left office.

Otherwise, Mueller is lying in the very snippet you posted, the conclusion of the report is in error.

Basically what this snippet is saying is that Mueller could not indict the president in any way. shape or form without violating policy

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Jail maybe

Nope. Next is the Senate gets to vote to remove them from office or not. Still not going to jail regardless the vote.

 

[Spirit of Light]

Nope. Next is the Senate gets to vote to remove them from office or not. Still not going to jail regardless the vote.

Yes you are right But if he is removed, and a court look in to the case, if found guilty, he can go to jail

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Yes you are right But if he is removed, and a court look in to the case, if found guilty, he can go to jail

Perhaps. Mayne not. Never been done before, and the idea that you can't indict a sitting president along with precedence established by Nixon doesn't bode well for criminal presidents going to jail.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Mueller fumbled all the way through this farce. Deflected or refused answers 198 times during the period from what I gathered, so much for the Superman the Socialist democrats were hoping for to remove a sitting president.

Republicans were a bit heavy too in conspiracy territory looking at various commentary sources.

Either way this, like usual, is another waste of time and money from a pathologicaly crazy and notably sick group of people with clearly nothing better to do than pretend their revelant in government since Trump took office.

 

[pearl]

Sadly, he looks like a deer in the headlights in his testimony. Being up there myself, I feel sorry for his memory lapses, not understanding the questions, and disputing what his c own report says.

I think you confuse memory loss with hesitation due to a methodical mind and the legal sense and necessity of being and articulating precisely. I do not remember much of what the politicians said, but most of what Mueller said.

 

[Terry Sampson]

@The Reverend Bob You are arguing with a rock.

 

[Terry Sampson]

NBC has made available a complete transcript of former special counsel Robert Mueller's testimony before the House Judiciary Committee and the House Intelligence Committee, July 24, 2019. Found @ Robert Mueller's testimony before Congress: Full transcript
Attached is a PDF copy of Mueller's testimony before both committees, for the benefit of those who prefer to read the transcripts and prefer to have something to actually quote..

The transcript opens with Mueller's testimony before the House Judiciary Committee. Mueller's testimony before the House Intelligence Committee begins on Page 153.

For the record, I present here current lists of Congressional members of both Committees:

 

[pearl]

Near as I can tell, most people like being lied to, if the lie answers their own prejudice.

For those of us who did not get swept up in those lies the first time around, gird your loins, round two coming up.

'The Great Hack'

https://www.bing.com/search?q=the+great+hack+netflix&form=PRUSEN&pc=EUPP_&mkt=en-us&httpsmsn=1&refig=4f720074a18f470689904e16026d9f17&sp=3&qs=NH&pq=%27the+great+hack%27&sk=SC1NH1&sc=8-16&cvid=4f720074a18f470689904e16026d9f17

 

[The Reverend Bob]

NBC has made available a complete transcript of former special counsel Robert Mueller's testimony before the House Judiciary Committee and the House Intelligence Committee, July 24, 2019. Found @ Robert Mueller's testimony before Congress: Full transcript
Attached is a PDF copy of Mueller's testimony before both committees, for the benefit of those who prefer to read the transcripts and prefer to have something to actually quote..

Thank you, Mr. Sampson. I'll make sure I get an A on the written test after I read this

 

[metis]

Even though there was no bombshell in Mueller's testimony, he definitely made it clear that Trump was acting in an "unpatriotic" and "criminal" manner, and that he could be tried as such after being out of office. He also used the word "unethical" in regards to some of Trump's actions.

However, for those of us who actually get the news, none of this is of any surprise, nor will it be of any surprise that those on the right will fabricate slants as to why Trump's a living saint.

 

[The Reverend Bob]

For those of us who did not get swept up in those lies the first time around, gird your loins, round two coming up.

'The Great Hack'

https://www.bing.com/search?q=the+great+hack+netflix&form=PRUSEN&pc=EUPP_&mkt=en-us&httpsmsn=1&refig=4f720074a18f470689904e16026d9f17&sp=3&qs=NH&pq=%27the+great+hack%27&sk=SC1NH1&sc=8-16&cvid=4f720074a18f470689904e16026d9f17

It's the Age of Information Warfare. We are in real trouble because not only can they get all sort of information on us but they have also weaponized memetics and that is very scary.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Not really, you're just confusing Rod Rosenstein with Donald Trump.

No, I am confusing Donald J Trump with Donald J Trump. The tweets in question say:

"It has been reported that Robert Mueller is saying that he did not apply and interview for the job of FBI Direct (and get turned down) the day before he was wrongfully appointed Special Counsel. Hope he doesn't say that under oath in that we have numerous witnesses to the ... interview, including the Vice President of the United States."

And that, as confirmed in the hearing and separately by Bannon -- is a lie. By @realDonaldTrump

Actually two lies: that he interviewed AND that he got turned down. He didn't apply, and therefore could not have been turned down.

 

[Terry Sampson]

One of my favorite parts of Mueller's testimony, from page 194 of the attachment to my Post # 171. Mike Quigley, Democrat, Illinois.

SCHIFF:

Mr. Quigley.

QUIGLEY:

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Director, thank you for being here. This, too, shall pass. Earlier today and throughout today you have stated the policy that a seated president cannot be indicted, correct?

MUELLER:

Correct.

QUIGLEY:

And upon questioning this morning, you were asked could that -- could a president be indicted after their service, correct?

MUELLER:

Yes.

QUIGLEY:

And your answer was that they could.

MUELLER:

They could.

SCHIFF:

Director, please speak into the microphone.

MUELLER:

I'm sorry. Thank you. They could.

QUIGLEY:

So the follow up question that should be concerning is what if a president serves beyond the statute of limitations?

MUELLER:

I don't know the answer to that one.

QUIGLEY:

Would it not indicate that if the statute of limitations of federal crimes such as this are five years that a president who serves a second terms is therefore under the policy, above the law?

MUELLER:

I'm not certain I would agree with the -- I'm not certain I would agree with the conclusion. I'm not certain that I can see the possibility that you suggest.

QUIGLEY:

But the statute doesn't toll, is that correct?

MUELLER:

I don't know specifically.

QUIGLEY:

It clearly doesn't. I just want -- as the American public is watching this and perhaps learning about many of these for the first time, we need to consider that and that the other alternatives are perhaps all that we have, but I appreciate your response. Earlier in questioning, someone mentioned that it was a question involved whether anyone in the Trump political world publicized the emails whether or not that was the case.

I just want to refer to Volume 1, page 60 where we learned that Trump Jr. publicly tweeted a link to the leak of stolen (inaudible) emails in October of 2016. You familiar with that?

MUELLER:

I am.

QUIGLEY:

So that would at least be a republishing of this information, would it not?

MUELLER:

I'm not certain I would agree -- I'm not certain I would agree with that.

QUIGLEY:

Director Pompeo assessed WikiLeaks in one point as a hostile intelligence service. Given your law enforcement experience and your knowledge of what WikiLeaks did here and what they do generally, would you assess that to be accurate or something similar? How would you assess what WikiLeaks does?

MUELLER:

Absolutely. And they are currently under indictment as Julian Assange is (ph).

QUIGLEY:

Would it be fair to describe them as you would agree with Director Pompeo -- that's what he was when he made that remark -- that it's a hostile intelligence service, correct?

MUELLER:

Yes.

QUIGLEY:

If we could put up slide six. "This just came out... WikiLeaks. I love WikiLeaks," Donald Trump, October 10, 2016, "This WikiLeaks stuff is unbelievable. It tells you the inner heart, you gotta read it," Donald Trump, October 12, 2016. "This WikiLeaks is like a treasure trove," Donald Trump, October 31, 2016. "Boy, I love reading those WikiLeaks," Donald Trump, November 4, 2016. Do any of those quotes disturb you, Mr. Director?

MUELLER:

I'm not sure I would say...

QUIGLEY:

How do you react?

MUELLER:

Well, problematic is an understatement in terms of what it displays, in terms of (inaudible) some, I don't know, hope or some boost to what is and should be illegal activity.

QUIGLEY:

Volume 1, page 59. Donald Trump Jr. had direct electronic communications with WikiLeaks during the campaign period. On October 3, 2016, WikiLeaks sent another direct message to Trump Jr. asking you guys to help disseminate a link alleging candidate Clinton had advocated a drone to attack Julian Assange. Trump Jr. responded that, quote, "he had already done so." Same question. Is behavior at the very least disturbing? Your reaction?

MUELLER:

Disturbing and also subject to investigation.

QUIGLEY:

Would it be described as aid and comfort to a hostile intelligence service, sir?

MUELLER:

I wouldn't categorize with any specificity.

QUIGLEY:

I yield the balance to the chairman, please.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Jail maybe

For what? Tweeting?

 

[Spirit of Light]

For what? Tweeting?

Braking the law

 

[Twilight Hue]

One of my favorite parts of Mueller's testimony, from page 194 of the attachment to my Post # 171.

SCHIFF:

Mr. Quigley.

QUIGLEY:

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Director, thank you for being here. This, too, shall pass. Earlier today and throughout today you have stated the policy that a seated president cannot be indicted, correct?

MUELLER:

Correct.

QUIGLEY:

And upon questioning this morning, you were asked could that -- could a president be indicted after their service, correct?

MUELLER:

Yes.

QUIGLEY:

And your answer was that they could.

MUELLER:

They could.

SCHIFF:

Director, please speak into the microphone.

MUELLER:

I'm sorry. Thank you. They could.

QUIGLEY:

So the follow up question that should be concerning is what if a president serves beyond the statute of limitations?

MUELLER:

I don't know the answer to that one.

QUIGLEY:

Would it not indicate that if the statute of limitations of federal crimes such as this are five years that a president who serves a second terms is therefore under the policy, above the law?

MUELLER:

I'm not certain I would agree with the -- I'm not certain I would agree with the conclusion. I'm not certain that I can see the possibility that you suggest.

QUIGLEY:

But the statute doesn't toll, is that correct?

MUELLER:

I don't know specifically.

QUIGLEY:

It clearly doesn't. I just want -- as the American public is watching this and perhaps learning about many of these for the first time, we need to consider that and that the other alternatives are perhaps all that we have, but I appreciate your response. Earlier in questioning, someone mentioned that it was a question involved whether anyone in the Trump political world publicized the emails whether or not that was the case.

I just want to refer to Volume 1, page 60 where we learned that Trump Jr. publicly tweeted a link to the leak of stolen (inaudible) emails in October of 2016. You familiar with that?

MUELLER:

I am.

QUIGLEY:

So that would at least be a republishing of this information, would it not?

MUELLER:

I'm not certain I would agree -- I'm not certain I would agree with that.

QUIGLEY:

Director Pompeo assessed WikiLeaks in one point as a hostile intelligence service. Given your law enforcement experience and your knowledge of what WikiLeaks did here and what they do generally, would you assess that to be accurate or something similar? How would you assess what WikiLeaks does?

MUELLER:

Absolutely. And they are currently under indictment as Julian Assange is (ph).

QUIGLEY:

Would it be fair to describe them as you would agree with Director Pompeo -- that's what he was when he made that remark -- that it's a hostile intelligence service, correct?

MUELLER:

Yes.

QUIGLEY:

If we could put up slide six. "This just came out... WikiLeaks. I love WikiLeaks," Donald Trump, October 10, 2016, "This WikiLeaks stuff is unbelievable. It tells you the inner heart, you gotta read it," Donald Trump, October 12, 2016. "This WikiLeaks is like a treasure trove," Donald Trump, October 31, 2016. "Boy, I love reading those WikiLeaks," Donald Trump, November 4, 2016. Do any of those quotes disturb you, Mr. Director?

MUELLER:

I'm not sure I would say...

QUIGLEY:

How do you react?

MUELLER:

Well, problematic is an understatement in terms of what it displays, in terms of (inaudible) some, I don't know, hope or some boost to what is and should be illegal activity.

QUIGLEY:

Volume 1, page 59. Donald Trump Jr. had direct electronic communications with WikiLeaks during the campaign period. On October 3, 2016, WikiLeaks sent another direct message to Trump Jr. asking you guys to help disseminate a link alleging candidate Clinton had advocated a drone to attack Julian Assange. Trump Jr. responded that, quote, "he had already done so." Same question. Is behavior at the very least disturbing? Your reaction?

MUELLER:

Disturbing and also subject to investigation.

QUIGLEY:

Would it be described as aid and comfort to a hostile intelligence service, sir?

MUELLER:

I wouldn't categorize with any specificity.

QUIGLEY:

I yield the balance to the chairman, please.

Mueller. A man of a few barely coherent words.

Not his fault. Part of health and aging, but he's clearly losing his marbles .

Mueller is there because he's a figurehead who has a reputation of whom the Socialist Democrats are using to get anything and everything against Trump and yet still failed. It's a Hail Mary and we all know it.