• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Mueller Hearings

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
The bottom line in all this, folks, is that there is no smoking gun here. The Democrats must stop this fishing expedition and move on, if they are to prevent Trump being President 5 years hence. And the only way they have left to do that is to go to the voters. They will have to convince enough Americans to vote Democrat, and to do that, they're going to have reach the swing voters who put him in in the first place. Trump cannot win in 2020 without them.

So, go back to the issues, and build your message and your campaign on those, Democrats. Focus on what those swing voters want: better insurance and lower drug costs, sensible immigration without wide open borders and racism, and the United States' place in the world. He is vulnerable in all those areas.

Yes, he's got the economy on his side at the moment, but that is not a reliable friend -- governments have a lot less control over how economies play out over time than they think they do, and it can turn with scarcely a moment's notice.

Focus on some of the cruel stuff Trump has done: separating children from parents, cutting benefits for the poor while increasing the deficit to pay for tax breaks for the wealthy (like himself), hurting the economy with stupid tariff wars, turning your democratic allies into enemies while cozying up to despots. Notice, please, that Iran and North Korea remain severe security threats.

And look at the man himself, the ample evidence of racism, narcissism, pandering to his own private interests, his erratic, often bizarre behaviour. Nobody needs an indictment to tell them what kind of man he is, or to ask themselves, "is that the kind of man I want as the President of my United States?"
 

shmogie

Well-Known Member
The investigation was about Russian interference. Why can't you get that into your head?
No, it was about Russian and Trump collusion, Why can´t you grasp that ? The FBI investigated collusion 10 months before Mueller got into it. The only interference they were interested in was hanging something on Trump. They used the Steele bogus dossier, and a statement by George Papadopolus, a Trump campaign worker, that the Russians had dirt on hillary, overheard by an Australian diplomat in a bar to get FISA warrants to spy on the Trump campaign. They were already well into spying on Trump and some of his people. This was the investigation that Mueller took over. Muellers best friend was fired FBI director Comey.

This is the Russian interference Mueller went after. He picked up a few other things, but the allegations that the Russians were helping Trump was the backbone of the investigation.

The FBI investigation was led by Strok, another fired FBI official whose disclosed emails show at the time he was heading this investigation, he hated Trump.

Russian interference is just a term which means Trump and Russia working together.
 

shmogie

Well-Known Member
The bottom line in all this, folks, is that there is no smoking gun here. The Democrats must stop this fishing expedition and move on, if they are to prevent Trump being President 5 years hence. And the only way they have left to do that is to go to the voters. They will have to convince enough Americans to vote Democrat, and to do that, they're going to have reach the swing voters who put him in in the first place. Trump cannot win in 2020 without them.

So, go back to the issues, and build your message and your campaign on those, Democrats. Focus on what those swing voters want: better insurance and lower drug costs, sensible immigration without wide open borders and racism, and the United States' place in the world. He is vulnerable in all those areas.

Yes, he's got the economy on his side at the moment, but that is not a reliable friend -- governments have a lot less control over how economies play out over time than they think they do, and it can turn with scarcely a moment's notice.

Focus on some of the cruel stuff Trump has done: separating children from parents, cutting benefits for the poor while increasing the deficit to pay for tax breaks for the wealthy (like himself), hurting the economy with stupid tariff wars, turning your democratic allies into enemies while cozying up to despots. Notice, please, that Iran and North Korea remain severe security threats.

And look at the man himself, the ample evidence of racism, narcissism, pandering to his own private interests, his erratic, often bizarre behaviour. Nobody needs an indictment to tell them what kind of man he is, or to ask themselves, "is that the kind of man I want as the President of my United States?"
LOL ! better insurance. You mean health insurance ? Well, obamacare is the great democrat solution, on those poor folk who have to be on it, hate it.

You are not keeping up, Trump is lowering drug costs, through a task force he has appointed to do so.

What benefits has he cut from the poor ? Please, list them.

Separating children from parents began with the Obama administration, for good reason. Under the stupid American immigration laws, children can only be detained 20 days, if their alleged parents are kept with them, they must be released after 20 days as well. Over 90% of the illegal parents are never heard from again.

Most middle class people got a tax savings, do you ever check facts or just reel off talking points ?

So called tariff wars sure cracked Mexico and Canada in line for a new trade deal, huh ?

Racism ? Tell me, please, of one racist act done by Trumps administration.

Keep your nose in Canada, you don´t know what you are talking about.
 

shmogie

Well-Known Member

Shadow Link

Active Member
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.
You're missing the point that this is a crack on Rod.
 

Shad

Veteran Member
More Than 750,000 Could Lose Food Stamps Under Trump Administration Proposal
More Than 750,000 Could Lose Food Stamps Under Trump Administration Proposal

You didn't read the article. "To do that, the administration would stop food stamps after three months for ABAWDs who don't work, volunteer or get job training for at least 20 hours a week." Go volunteer. Heck volunteer work is one of the easiest ways to build up a resume.This is basic HS stuff.

Trump Budget Deeply Cuts Health, Housing, Other Assistance for Low- and Moderate-Income Families
February 14, 2018
Trump Budget Deeply Cuts Health, Housing, Other Assistance for Low- and Moderate-Income Families

Said budget requires the House to be on board which had a Dem majority in 2018. Now link the actual budget that was passed. A year old article is a poor way to score points especially when you have no idea how the government works
 

ecco

Veteran Member
From the link... (My emphases)

Fast Facts The U.S. Government’s overall financial condition worsened by $3.9 trillion in 2018. While most people focus on the budget deficit of $779 billion, the overall decline in Net Position presents a better picture of the government’s financial decline.

Bottom Line Our elected officials have made repeated financial decisions that have left the federal government with a debt burden of $105 trillion, including unfunded Social Security and Medicare promises. That equates to a $693,000 burden for every federal taxpayer. Because the federal government would need more than $20,000 from each taxpayer, it has received an “F” grade based on Truth in Accounting’s grading scale
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
No thank you. Yes, you know the Bible as well as I do...at least the words. But what you clearly cannot see is how vile those very episodes you are describing are, and how they make this very reasonable person cringe.

And you also cannot see, as I suggested at the beginning of this little exercise, how the "loving God" of Christianity is simply not evident in any of those examples. Very, very much the opposite. I can't tell you why you are blind to that truth -- perhaps out of some deep need that I know nothing of, and maybe you don't, either -- but blind you are.

You blithely mention Job, and blame it all on Satan, but who did Satan tempt? God! And God bit...and the cost of that bite was the lives of 7 human beings, Job's children.

The 42 children and the bears? God called up bears to kill (in an obviously horrific manner) CHILDREN for calling Elisha "baldy." (Even if it was the truth!)

And the Canaanites? Kill all, leave none alive, not even male children, only female virgins that you can "keep for yourselves?" (For what purpose that, I wonder?)

And really, didn't God create pigs? And shrimp? Maybe they're "unclean," but does that justify animal cruelty?

There is no good and loving God in that, none whatever. And all the apologetics in the world (and I've read boat-loads full of them) will ever convince me otherwise.

And that, as the say, is "the Bible truth!"

I think you are looking at the Bible through the eyes of your childhood experience saying "If there is a God, He wouldn't have let this happen" without looking at the truth of what was written.

So if you look at Job, who opened the door to the Devil, and have the understanding that it is man who is the controlling factor on this earth, you will find that God was doing all He could to prevent the Devil from going beyond his authority. "Don't touch HIs life". In other words, things would have been a lot worse for Job and you had it not been for God. Had he obeyed his wife and cursed God, then they last vestige of protection would have been gone.

But approximately 9 months later when Job got his life right, God's protection was back in force and He blessed God with more than what the Devil had stolen. A promise for all. Remember, Satan said "you have a hedge of protection over Job"... or did you forget that?

Bears: they weren't children if you dig deeper. They were of marrying age but people read it without understanding the culture of the people who wrote it. Would you let your child to go out alone? Let alone 42 parents letting LITTLE? children without supervision... I don't think so.

Canaanites? The ones who sacrificed children? The ones who were prolific in beastiality? Your in the medical profession... what kind of contagious sicknesses would be rampant thoughout their people? How do you stop it? And if they killed "All" of them... why... "Neither did Manasseh drive out the inhabitants of Bethshean and her towns, nor Taanach and her towns, nor the inhabitants of Dor and her towns, nor the inhabitants of Ibleam and her towns, nor the inhabitants of Megiddo and her towns: but the Canaanites would dwell in that land."

Please get the facts straight.

Animal cruelty? Shrimp clean the Oceans... how is it animal cruelty? Are you saying that animals are humans and we shouldn't eat them? I guess if that is your philosophical world view, you could see it that way.
 

Terry Sampson

Well-Known Member
In my Post #171, in this thread, I provided a complete transcript of Mueller's testimony before the House Judiciary Committee and the House Intelligence Committee.
On Page 113 of the transcript that I provided, Congresswoman Val Demings (Democrat/Florida) engaged Mueller in this exchange during his testimony before the House Judiciary Committee:
  • DEMINGS:

    Director Mueller, a couple of my colleagues right here wanted to talk to you or ask you about lies, so let's talk about lies. According to your report, page 9, Volume 1, witnesses lied to your offices and to Congress. Those lies materially impaired the investigation of Russia interference according to your report other than the individuals who plead guilty to crimes based on their lying to you and your team. Did other witnesses lie to you?

    MUELLER:

    I think there are probably a spectrum of witnesses in terms of those who are not telling the full truth and those who are outright liars.

    DEMINGS:


    Thank you very much, outright liars. It is fair to say then that there were limits on what evidence was available to your investigation of both Russia election interference and obstruction of justice.


    MUELLER:

    That's usually the case.

    DEMINGS:


    And that lies by Trump campaign officials and administration officials impeded your investigation?


    MUELLER:

    I would generally agree with that.

    DEMINGS:


    Thank you so much, Director Mueller. You will be hearing more from me in the next hearing, so I yield the balance of my time to Mr. Correa. Thank you.

(To be continued)
 

Terry Sampson

Well-Known Member
(Continued from my Post #217)

Later, during Mueller's testimony before the House Intelligence Committee, Congresswoman Demings engaged Mueller in the following exchange (See transcript Page 229 et seq):
  • DEMINGS:


    Thank you so much Mr. Chairman and Director Mueller, thank you so much for being a person of honor and integrity. Thank you for your service to the nation, we are certainly better for it.


    Director Mueller, I too want to focus on the written responses that the president did provide and the continued efforts to lie and cover up what happened during the 2016 election. Were the president answers submitted under oath?


    MUELLER:

    Yes, yes.

    DEMINGS:


    Thank you, they were. Were these all the answers your office wanted to ask the president about Russia interference in the 2016 election?


    MUELLER:

    No, not necessarily.

    DEMINGS:


    So there were other...


    MUELLER:

    Yes.

    DEMINGS:


    ...questions that you wanted to answer.


    Did you analyze his written answers on Russia interference to draw conclusions about the president's credibility?


    MUELLER:

    No, it was perhaps one of the factors, but nothing more than that.

    DEMINGS:


    It was one of the factors? So, what did you determine about the president's credibility?


    MUELLER:

    And that I can't get into.

    DEMINGS:


    Director Mueller, I know based on your decades of experience, you've probably had an opportunity to analyze the credibility of countless witnesses, but you weren't able to do so with this witness?


    MUELLER:

    Well with every witness, particularly a -- a leading witness, one assesses the credibility day by day, witness by witness, document by document. And that's what happened in this case, so we started with very little and then by the end we ended up with a fair amount -- fair amount.

    DEMINGS:


    Thank you. Well let's go through some of the answers to take a closer look at his credibility, because it seems to me, Director Mueller, that his answers were not credible at all. Did some of President Trump's incomplete answers relate to Trump Tower Moscow?


    MUELLER:

    Yes.

    DEMINGS:


    For example, did you ask the president whether he had had at any time, directed or suggested that -- that discussions about Trump Moscow project should cease?


    MUELLER:

    Should what?

    DEMINGS:


    Cease.


    MUELLER:

    Do you have a citation?

    DEMINGS:


    Yes. We're still in Appendix C, Section 1, 7.


    MUELLER:

    The first page?

    DEMINGS:


    Yes. Because the president did not answer whether he had at any time directed or suggested that discussions about the Trump Moscow project should cease, but he has since made public comments about this topic.


    MUELLER:

    OK. And the question was?

    DEMINGS:


    Did the president -- well let me go onto the next. Did the president fully answer that question in his written statement to you about the Trump Moscow project ceasing? Again, in Appendix C.


    MUELLER:

    No. And can you direct me to the particular paragraph your inverting (ph) to?

    DEMINGS:


    It would be Appendix C-C1, but let me move forward. Nine days after he submitted his written answers, didn't the president say publicly that he, quote, "decided not to do the project, " unquote. And that is in your report.


    MUELLER:

    I am not -- I'd ask you -- I'd ask you if you would to point out the particular paragraph that you're focused on --

    DEMINGS:


    OK, we can move on. Did the president answer your follow-up questions? According to the report there were follow-up questions because of the president's incomplete answers about the Moscow project.


    Did the president answer your follow up questions either in writing or orally? We're now in Volume 2, page 150-151.


    MUELLER:

    No.

    DEMINGS:


    He did not. In fact, there were many questions that you asked the president that he simply didn't answer, isn't that correct?


    MUELLER:

    True.

    DEMINGS:


    And there were many answers that contradicted other evidence you had gathered during the investigation, isn't that correct Director Mueller?


    MUELLER:

    Yes.

    DEMINGS:


    Director Mueller, for example the president is written as or stated (ph) he did not recall having advanced knowledge of WikiLeaks releases, is that correct?


    MUELLER:

    I think that's what he said.

    DEMINGS:


    But didn't your investigation uncover evidence that the president did in fact have advanced knowledge of WikiLeaks public releases of e-mails damaging to his opponent?


    MUELLER:

    And I can't get in to that area.

    DEMINGS:


    Did your investigation determine after very careful vetting or Rick Gates and Michael Cohen's that you found them to be credible?


    MUELLER:

    That we found the president to be credible?

    DEMINGS:


    That you found Gates and Cohen to be credible in their statements about WikiLeaks --


    MUELLER:

    Those are areas I'm not going to discuss.

    DEMINGS:


    OK. Could you say Director Mueller that the president was credible?


    MUELLER:

    I can't answer that question.

    DEMINGS:


    Director Mueller, isn't it fair to say that the president's written answers were not only inadequate and incomplete because he didn't answer many of your questions, but where he did his answers show that he wasn't always being truthful.


    MUELLER:

    There (ph) -- I would say generally.

    DEMINGS:


    "Generally." Director Mueller it's one thing for the president to lie to the American people about your investigation, falsely claiming that you found no collusion and no obstruction -- but its (ph) something else altogether for him to get away with not answering your questions and lying about them. And as a former law enforcement officer of almost 30 years, I find that a disgrace to our criminal justice system.


    Thank you so much, I yield back to the Chairman.

(To be continued)
 

Terry Sampson

Well-Known Member
(Continued from my Post #218)

From the Report on the Investigation into Russian Interference in the 2016 Presidential Election, Volume I, Page 9 [cited by Congresswoman Demings in her House Judiciary Committee exchange with Mueller] says:

"Third, the investigation established that several individuals affiliated with the Trump Campaign lied to the Office, and to Congress, about their interactions with Russian-affiliated individuals and related matters. Those lies materially impaired the investigation of Russian election interference."
Regarding the Mueller team's attempt to obtain the President's testimony, see Appendix C of the Mueller Report, specifically C-1 and C-2.

The President provided written responses through his personal counsel to questions submitted to him by the Special Counsel's Office. We first explain the process that led to the submission of written questions and then attach the President's responses.

Beginning in December 2017, this Office sought for more than a year to interview the President on topics relevant to both Russian-election interference and obstruction-of-justice. We advised counsel that the President was a " subject" of the investigation under the definition of the Justice Manual - "a person whose conduct is within the scope of the grand jury's investigation." Justice Manual § 9-11.151 (2018). We also advised counsel that"[ a]n interview with the President is vital to our investigation" and that this Office had " carefully considered the constitutional and other arguments raised by . .. counsel, and they d[id] not provide us with reason to forgo seeking an interview." We additionally stated that " it is in the interest of the Presidency and the public for an interview to take place" and offered "numerous accommodations to aid the President's preparation and avoid surprise." After extensive discussions with the Department of Justice about the Special Counsel's objective of securing the President's testimony, these accommodations included the submissions of written questions to the President on certain Russia-related topics.

We received the President's written responses in late November 2018. In December 2018, we informed counsel of the insufficiency of those responses in several respects. We noted, among other things, that the President stated on more than 30 occasions that he "does not 'recall' or 'remember' or have an 'independent recollection'" of information called for by the questions. Other answers were "incomplete or imprecise." The written responses, we informed counsel, " demonstrate the inadequacy of the written format, as we have had no opportunity to ask followup questions that would ensure complete answers and potentially refresh your client's recollection or clarify the extent or nature of his lack of recollection." We again requested an in-person interview, limited to certain topics, advising the President's counsel that " [t]his is the President's opportunity to voluntarily provide us with information for us to evaluate in the context of all of the evidence we have gathered." The President declined.
Congresswoman Deming's exchange with Mueller directs my attention to Trump's participation in the "material impairment" of the Mueller team's investigation of Russian election interference.
 

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
LOL ! better insurance. You mean health insurance ? Well, obamacare is the great democrat solution, on those poor folk who have to be on it, hate it.
Not quite so. The public is evenly divided: 50% favourable, 46% unfavourable. The split is largely on party lines, 80% Democrats favourable, 81% Republicans unfavourable.

Meantime, it got healthcare for 20 million Americans. Likely not important to you, but I bet it was important to them.

Yes, some people are worse off, especially because of the “individual mandate” and because for some healthy people, insurance costs are up as insurers have to pay for those sick people who were previously shut out of coverage. Many of those would have been helped if Democrats had been able to pass some of their original ideas, including a “public option” plan run by government (to replace “individual mandate”), but more conservative Democrats in the Senate rejected that.

Finally, with Republicans in control of the Presidency, the House and the Senate, they couldn’t get rid of the ACA.
You are not keeping up, Trump is lowering drug costs, through a task force he has appointed to do so.
I’m old enough to have seen a lot of “task forces” in my life, and to have noticed how many of them failed to deliver anything at all, or anything of much value. Meantime, what has actually happened to drug costs, so far?
What benefits has he cut from the poor ? Please, list them.
How about food stamps, which Trump is proposing to limit by eliminating automatic enrollment in the program for poor familes who receive welfare benefits. There are about 3. 1 million who are eligible because of this link (8% of all receiving food stamps), and policy experts have sakd that the proposal is likely to increase food insecurity among needy families.

Oh, and about 2 million federal workers are about to lose a lot in retirement savings. Many people tend to count on these things, and this sort of action throws a big monkey wrench into all sorts of plans that families make, including how much they can afford to spend on things like education for their children.
Separating children from parents began with the Obama administration, for good reason. Under the stupid American immigration laws, children can only be detained 20 days, if their alleged parents are kept with them, they must be released after 20 days as well. Over 90% of the illegal parents are never heard from again.
That doesn’t make separating children from their families a good thing, sorry. Have all of those children been returned to their families, or will some never be, do you suspect?

Oh, and by the way, although Trump has made the claim that he inherited that policy from Obama, that has been found to be NOT TRUE (likely not his first lie, I'm betting). The policy was introduced under the Trump administration, and though he has since ended it, some family separations continue to take place, and there are still children separated from their families and some are reportedly being kept in appalling conditions.
Racism ? Tell me, please, of one racist act done by Trumps administration.
Forgot about those “go back where you came from” Tweets already? Forgotten that he called Mexican immigrants “criminals and rapists?” (All of them, because how lumping people together works.) Forgot that he pandered to white supremacists after Charlottesville?

Finally, about "keeping my nose out," you forget that as a Canadian (you might remember that we've been a steadfast US ally for some time now), living right next door, everything done in the US has a major effect on Canada, and therefore we care about what happens there. Every Canadian knows about a million times more about the U.S. than any American knows about Canada, because you don't have to care. That's the bully way, and the recent tariffs used to tear down previous good-faith negotiations over trade is just one example.
 
Top