Elvado
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 10,495
|
Post by Elvado on Jul 24, 2019 14:07:28 GMT -5
At a time when the country has real problems and hemorrhages money, this is how our elected officials occupy themselves... Is it any wonder people loathe politicians? Lol.... Serious question. Did you find today’s hearing to have any real value? I don’t think one mind was change today in either direction.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 24, 2019 14:10:59 GMT -5
Serious question. Did you find today’s hearing to have any real value? I don’t think one mind was change today in either direction. 1) I just don't think you would come to that same conclusion if this was a Democratic President... Have you looked at your posting history? 2) I'm sure folks can walk and chew bubble gum at the same time. 3) I do feel this stuff is important regardless of wether it moves the needle in either direction. Especially when you have a President and AG set on distorting the findings of the report. Facts do matter. Truth does matter, even in the Trump era...
|
|
Elvado
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 10,495
|
Post by Elvado on Jul 24, 2019 14:28:51 GMT -5
Serious question. Did you find today’s hearing to have any real value? I don’t think one mind was change today in either direction. 1) I just don't think you would come to that same conclusion if this was a Democratic President... Have you looked at your posting history? 2) I'm sure folks can walk and chew bubble gum at the same time. 3) I do feel this stuff is important regardless of wether it moves the needle in either direction. Especially when you have a President and AG set on distorting the findings of the report. Facts do matter. Truth does matter, even in the Trump era... Rest assured my friend the President and AG are not the only parties committed to distorting the findings. That said, like most Congressional hearings, this amounted to little more than a Edited for the members to make speeches and attempt to look serious and carry partisan water. We will have to respectfully disagree as to its value.
|
|
tashoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 12,326
|
Post by tashoya on Jul 24, 2019 14:32:44 GMT -5
I think that the presentation of facts is an important endeavor. Especially when those charged with acting on the findings refused to read the report in the first place. Essentially, it was story time for people too lazy to do their jobs.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 24, 2019 14:41:22 GMT -5
1) I just don't think you would come to that same conclusion if this was a Democratic President... Have you looked at your posting history? 2) I'm sure folks can walk and chew bubble gum at the same time. 3) I do feel this stuff is important regardless of wether it moves the needle in either direction. Especially when you have a President and AG set on distorting the findings of the report. Facts do matter. Truth does matter, even in the Trump era... Rest assured my friend the President and AG are not the only parties committed to distorting the findings.That said, like most Congressional hearings, this amounted to little more than a Edited for the members to make speeches and attempt to look serious and carry partisan water. We will have to respectfully disagree as to its value. Thus the reason why it's important to have Mueller clarify... Facts do matter, right? Can you provide an example of someone on the other side distorting the findings of the report according to you?
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Jul 25, 2019 9:13:18 GMT -5
Wow, what a nothingburger.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 25, 2019 11:40:15 GMT -5
Looks like a lot more than nothing to me... Here’s a list of statements Mueller affirmed as accurate: Russia engaged in a sweeping and systematic effort to influence the 2016 election. Russia reached out to the Trump campaign as they were trying to accomplish this. ***The Trump campaign welcomed help from Russia. Donald Trump Jr. said the campaign would “love” dirt on Hillary Clinton provided by Russia. Trump called on Russia to hack Clinton’s emails. Trump praised Russia’s release of the Democratic emails hacked by WikiLeaks. *Trump’s campaign based a messaging strategy around the hacked materials. **Members of the Trump campaign were trying to enrich themselves personally during the campaign and transition. **Paul Manafort was trying to achieve debt forgiveness from a Russia oligarch. **Michael Flynn was trying to make money from Turkey. **Trump was trying to make money from a Trump Tower in Moscow. ***Numerous Trump associates lied about this, including Flynn, Manafort, Rick Gates, Michael Cohen, and George Papadopolous. **Manafort encouraged others to lie. **Lies by Trump campaign officials and administration officials impeded his investigation. Mueller’s investigation was not a “witch hunt,” as Trump has claimed. Russian interference was not a “hoax,” as Trump has claimed. *Russia wanted Trump to win the election. *Russia informed Trump campaign officials of this intention. Russia committed federal crimes in order to help Trump win. **The Trump campaign lied to cover up their dealings with Russia during the campaign. ** Trump was not exonerated.. www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/watch-adam-schiff-robert-mueller-testimony-863098/
|
|
DallasHoya
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,634
|
Post by DallasHoya on Jul 25, 2019 11:46:36 GMT -5
Serious question. Did you find today’s hearing to have any real value? I don’t think one mind was change today in either direction. 1) I just don't think you would come to that same conclusion if this was a Democratic President... Have you looked at your posting history? 2) I'm sure folks can walk and chew bubble gum at the same time. 3) I do feel this stuff is important regardless of wether it moves the needle in either direction. Especially when you have a President and AG set on distorting the findings of the report. Facts do matter. Truth does matter, even in the Trump era... While I think the hearings were like most hearings - full of pontificating members whose minds were already made up - I do think there was a key point that came out of them. In the afternoon hearing, Mueller specifically repudiated the Democratic contention that he didn’t charge the president because of the OLC opinion that you can't indict a sitting President, and stated instead that "we did not reach a determination as to whether the president committed a crime." To me, that takes away a significant talking point that we've heard for the past two months: that the House should impeach because Mueller concluded that Trump was guilty of obstruction but couldn't indict him.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 25, 2019 11:49:47 GMT -5
1) I just don't think you would come to that same conclusion if this was a Democratic President... Have you looked at your posting history? 2) I'm sure folks can walk and chew bubble gum at the same time. 3) I do feel this stuff is important regardless of wether it moves the needle in either direction. Especially when you have a President and AG set on distorting the findings of the report. Facts do matter. Truth does matter, even in the Trump era... While I think the hearings were like most hearings - full of pontificating members whose minds were already made up - I do think there was a key point that came out of them. In the afternoon hearing, Mueller specifically repudiated the Democratic contention that he didn’t charge the president because of the OLC opinion that you can't indict a sitting President, and stated instead that "we did not reach a determination as to whether the president committed a crime." To me, that takes away a significant talking point that we've heard for the past two months: that the House should impeach because Mueller concluded that Trump was guilty of obstruction but couldn't indict him. Eh.... But that wasn't the talking point. You're mischaracterizing it. The talking point was that it played a role in his decision, and he confirmed it did by saying they didn't look at it because of the OLC opinion. What he clarified was consistent with what he said in his opening statement: How does that square with this exchange with William Barr?
|
|
EtomicB
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 14,948
|
Post by EtomicB on Jul 25, 2019 12:25:16 GMT -5
Looks like a lot more than nothing to me... Here’s a list of statements Mueller affirmed as accurate: Russia engaged in a sweeping and systematic effort to influence the 2016 election. Russia reached out to the Trump campaign as they were trying to accomplish this. ***The Trump campaign welcomed help from Russia. Donald Trump Jr. said the campaign would “love” dirt on Hillary Clinton provided by Russia. Trump called on Russia to hack Clinton’s emails. Trump praised Russia’s release of the Democratic emails hacked by WikiLeaks. *Trump’s campaign based a messaging strategy around the hacked materials. **Members of the Trump campaign were trying to enrich themselves personally during the campaign and transition. **Paul Manafort was trying to achieve debt forgiveness from a Russia oligarch. **Michael Flynn was trying to make money from Turkey. **Trump was trying to make money from a Trump Tower in Moscow. ***Numerous Trump associates lied about this, including Flynn, Manafort, Rick Gates, Michael Cohen, and George Papadopolous. **Manafort encouraged others to lie. **Lies by Trump campaign officials and administration officials impeded his investigation. Mueller’s investigation was not a “witch hunt,” as Trump has claimed. Russian interference was not a “hoax,” as Trump has claimed. *Russia wanted Trump to win the election. *Russia informed Trump campaign officials of this intention. Russia committed federal crimes in order to help Trump win. **The Trump campaign lied to cover up their dealings with Russia during the campaign. ** Trump was not exonerated.. www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/watch-adam-schiff-robert-mueller-testimony-863098/ EasyEd probably meant to say "what a nothing NEWburger" ... Seems to me he & Most right-leaning folks were already good with the things you've listed above...
|
|
DallasHoya
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,634
|
Post by DallasHoya on Jul 25, 2019 12:42:45 GMT -5
While I think the hearings were like most hearings - full of pontificating members whose minds were already made up - I do think there was a key point that came out of them. In the afternoon hearing, Mueller specifically repudiated the Democratic contention that he didn’t charge the president because of the OLC opinion that you can't indict a sitting President, and stated instead that "we did not reach a determination as to whether the president committed a crime." To me, that takes away a significant talking point that we've heard for the past two months: that the House should impeach because Mueller concluded that Trump was guilty of obstruction but couldn't indict him. Eh.... But that wasn't the talking point. You're mischaracterizing it. The talking point I'm referring is in the exact question posed by Ted 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 expressly repudiated that point in the afternoon session: "That is not the correct way to say it,” Mueller said. “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.” To me, Lieu was suggesting that Mueller had concluded that Trump committed obstruction, and that Mueller didn't seek to indict only because of the OLC opinion. In his own words, Mueller did not reach a determination on the obstruction issue - which doesn't support Lieu's position that he did but didn't indict because of the OLC opinion, or Trump's position that he was exonerated.
|
|
EtomicB
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 14,948
|
Post by EtomicB on Jul 25, 2019 13:01:24 GMT -5
Eh.... But that wasn't the talking point. You're mischaracterizing it. The talking point I'm referring is in the exact question posed by Ted 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 expressly repudiated that point in the afternoon session: "That is not the correct way to say it,” Mueller said. “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.” To me, Lieu was suggesting that Mueller had concluded that Trump committed obstruction, and that Mueller didn't seek to indict only because of the OLC opinion. In his own words, Mueller did not reach a determination on the obstruction issue - which doesn't support Lieu's position that he did but didn't indict because of the OLC opinion, or Trump's position that he was exonerated. Do you think President Trump is guilty of obstruction?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 25, 2019 13:11:37 GMT -5
Eh.... But that wasn't the talking point. You're mischaracterizing it. The talking point I'm referring is in the exact question posed by Ted 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 expressly repudiated that point in the afternoon session: "That is not the correct way to say it,” Mueller said. “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.” To me, Lieu was suggesting that Mueller had concluded that Trump committed obstruction, and that Mueller didn't seek to indict only because of the OLC opinion. In his own words, Mueller did not reach a determination on the obstruction issue - which doesn't support Lieu's position that he did but didn't indict because of the OLC opinion, or Trump's position that he was exonerated. Is that the "Democratic contention" or is that Liue's contention? To me your question makes it seem like this is the widespread opinion of Democrats in congress, when the majority of people state correctly it played a role. Is that fair? Why didn't you comment on Barr?
|
|
DallasHoya
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,634
|
Post by DallasHoya on Jul 25, 2019 13:16:41 GMT -5
The talking point I'm referring is in the exact question posed by Ted 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 expressly repudiated that point in the afternoon session: "That is not the correct way to say it,” Mueller said. “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.” To me, Lieu was suggesting that Mueller had concluded that Trump committed obstruction, and that Mueller didn't seek to indict only because of the OLC opinion. In his own words, Mueller did not reach a determination on the obstruction issue - which doesn't support Lieu's position that he did but didn't indict because of the OLC opinion, or Trump's position that he was exonerated. Do you think President Trump is guilty of obstruction? I honestly don't know. That's why I wish Mueller would have answered it, as I thought that's why he was appointed. As I posted in May, I think he should have concluded either (a) like the collusion allegation, there was insufficient evidence, or (b) unlike the collusion allegation, there was sufficient evidence, but he didn't seek to indict because of DOJ policy that you can't indict a sitting president. I understand the reasons why he concluded what he did, but I think it was a cop-out. Given Mueller's only other conclusion, do you think President Trump is guilty of conspiracy?
|
|
DallasHoya
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,634
|
Post by DallasHoya on Jul 25, 2019 13:24:31 GMT -5
The talking point I'm referring is in the exact question posed by Ted 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 expressly repudiated that point in the afternoon session: "That is not the correct way to say it,” Mueller said. “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.” To me, Lieu was suggesting that Mueller had concluded that Trump committed obstruction, and that Mueller didn't seek to indict only because of the OLC opinion. In his own words, Mueller did not reach a determination on the obstruction issue - which doesn't support Lieu's position that he did but didn't indict because of the OLC opinion, or Trump's position that he was exonerated. Is that the "Democratic contention" or is that Liue's contention? To me your question makes it seem like this is the widespread opinion of Democrats in congress, when the majority of people state correctly it played a role. Is that fair? Why didn't you comment on Barr? Uh, Lieu's a Democrat, so I guess I should have written that it's "a" rather than "the" Democrat's contention. Although it's shared by a lot of others on the left. I don't deny that the OLC opinion played a role in Mueller's determination not to make a determination. Of course it did. Again, my point is that Mueller has now made it clear that - contrary to Lieu's question - Mueller did not determine that Trump committed obstruction. I think what Barr stated to Congress was pretty clearly wrong.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 25, 2019 13:28:08 GMT -5
Do you think President Trump is guilty of obstruction? I honestly don't know. That's why I wish Mueller would have answered it, as I thought that's why he was appointed. As I posted in May, I think he should have concluded either (a) like the collusion allegation, there was insufficient evidence, or (b) unlike the collusion allegation, there was sufficient evidence, but he didn't seek to indict because of DOJ policy that you can't indict a sitting president. I understand the reasons why he concluded what he did, but I think it was a cop-out. Given Mueller's only other conclusion, do you think President Trump is guilty of conspiracy? Why do you need Mueller's opinion to determine yes or no? It doesn't change the evidence that was presented. Shouldn't you be able to look at it and come to a conclusion?
|
|
EtomicB
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 14,948
|
Post by EtomicB on Jul 25, 2019 13:34:57 GMT -5
Do you think President Trump is guilty of obstruction? I honestly don't know. That's why I wish Mueller would have answered it, as I thought that's why he was appointed. As I posted in May, I think he should have concluded either (a) like the collusion allegation, there was insufficient evidence, or (b) unlike the collusion allegation, there was sufficient evidence, but he didn't seek to indict because of DOJ policy that you can't indict a sitting president. I understand the reasons why he concluded what he did, but I think it was a cop-out. Given Mueller's only other conclusion, do you think President Trump is guilty of conspiracy? I think there's enough evidence to charge his campaign with conspiracy but because it's very circumstantial it'd be hard to convict... Continually asking subordinates to fire Mueller is definitely obstruction in my view, what more do you need?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 25, 2019 13:45:23 GMT -5
Is that the "Democratic contention" or is that Liue's contention? To me your question makes it seem like this is the widespread opinion of Democrats in congress, when the majority of people state correctly it played a role. Is that fair? Why didn't you comment on Barr? Uh, Lieu's a Democrat, so I guess I should have written that it's "a" rather than "the" Democrat's contention. Although it's shared by a lot of others on the left. I don't deny that the OLC opinion played a role in Mueller's determination not to make a determination. Of course it did. Again, my point is that Mueller has now made it clear that - contrary to Lieu's question - Mueller did not determine that Trump committed obstruction. I think what Barr stated to Congress was pretty clearly wrong. Fair enough... I disagree that is the prevailing opinion, so I don't think that part was that significant. But if you think that it was I could see how you would definitely see it differently. My understanding was Barr insinuated Mueller was unaffected by OLC view, and the response was people pointed out that the Mueller report contradicted that.
|
|
DallasHoya
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,634
|
Post by DallasHoya on Jul 25, 2019 14:04:38 GMT -5
I honestly don't know. That's why I wish Mueller would have answered it, as I thought that's why he was appointed. As I posted in May, I think he should have concluded either (a) like the collusion allegation, there was insufficient evidence, or (b) unlike the collusion allegation, there was sufficient evidence, but he didn't seek to indict because of DOJ policy that you can't indict a sitting president. I understand the reasons why he concluded what he did, but I think it was a cop-out. Given Mueller's only other conclusion, do you think President Trump is guilty of conspiracy? Why do you need Mueller's opinion to determine yes or no? It doesn't change the evidence that was presented. Shouldn't you be able to look at it and come to a conclusion? I'd prefer to rely on the opinion from someone who conducted a two-year investigation that reviewed millions of pages of documents and interviewed over 500 people. And I have not read the report.
|
|
DallasHoya
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,634
|
Post by DallasHoya on Jul 25, 2019 14:10:50 GMT -5
I honestly don't know. That's why I wish Mueller would have answered it, as I thought that's why he was appointed. As I posted in May, I think he should have concluded either (a) like the collusion allegation, there was insufficient evidence, or (b) unlike the collusion allegation, there was sufficient evidence, but he didn't seek to indict because of DOJ policy that you can't indict a sitting president. I understand the reasons why he concluded what he did, but I think it was a cop-out. Given Mueller's only other conclusion, do you think President Trump is guilty of conspiracy? I think there's enough evidence to charge his campaign with conspiracy but because it's very circumstantial it'd be hard to convict... Continually asking subordinates to fire Mueller is definitely obstruction in my view, what more do you need? I'm not a criminal lawyer and I don't know the first thing about the elements of an obstruction charge. I have heard some highly qualified constitutional lawyers argue the position that if Trump had the constitutional right to fire an executive branch officer, it can't be obstruction as a matter of law. I don't know whether I agree with that or not; only that it's not crystal clear as some would like to believe.
|
|