|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on May 29, 2019 13:51:44 GMT
11am EDT!
|
|
|
|
Post by peano on May 29, 2019 14:54:30 GMT
Ooh, intriguing. I never turn on the tv during the day, but it's on now!
|
|
lizacreates
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,856 
|
Post by lizacreates on May 29, 2019 14:55:27 GMT
I don’t understand his reticence. I really don’t. I know these hearings are contentious, but just about everything in politics nowadays is contentious. Why not answer questions? It’s his report and by his own letter he was dissatisfied with how it had been interpreted. In any event, I’ll be watching and hoping for clarity in some of the more debatable portions of the report.
|
|
|
|
Post by Skellinton on May 29, 2019 15:09:34 GMT
Wow. Wow. Wow.
If I am hearing correctly, he is saying that the Donald would be charged were he not the sitting president, right?
|
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on May 29, 2019 15:11:01 GMT
He will say no more!
If the president did not commit a crime he would have said so.
|
|
|
|
Post by stumpedagainof3 on May 29, 2019 15:12:01 GMT
Un-fucking-believable!!!
😡😡😡
|
|
|
|
Post by andreasmom on May 29, 2019 15:13:57 GMT
Wow. Wow. Wow. If I am hearing correctly, he is saying that the Donald would be charged were he not the sitting president, right? I believe he also said there were other vehicles to address the issue. I need to watch again and read the transcript to make sure i understood. |
|
imsirius
Prolific Pea
Call it as I see it.
Posts: 7,661
Location: Floating in the black veil.
Jul 12, 2014 19:59:28 GMT
|
Post by imsirius on May 29, 2019 15:16:30 GMT
In a nutshell..
Trump committed a crime. The DOJ can't touch him.
Congress it's your ball..do your job.
That was his message.
|
|
|
|
Post by sabrinae on May 29, 2019 15:16:52 GMT
Wow. Wow. Wow. If I am hearing correctly, he is saying that the Donald would be charged were he not the sitting president, right? I believe he also said there were other vehicles to address the issue. I need to watch again and read the transcript to make sure i understood. Meaning impeachment by Congress. |
|
imsirius
Prolific Pea
Call it as I see it.
Posts: 7,661
Location: Floating in the black veil.
Jul 12, 2014 19:59:28 GMT
|
Post by imsirius on May 29, 2019 15:17:03 GMT
Wow. Wow. Wow. If I am hearing correctly, he is saying that the Donald would be charged were he not the sitting president, right? Yes. Exactly that. |
|
|
|
Post by quinlove on May 29, 2019 15:18:34 GMT
Robert Mueller - “ If we had confidence the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so.”
There it is.
|
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on May 29, 2019 15:18:52 GMT
Congress it's your ball..do your job. Congress is being denied access to all the info by dt and Barr. And Barr is in Alaska, so what is he investigating there? No rush I guess! |
|
lizacreates
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,856
|
Post by lizacreates on May 29, 2019 15:28:18 GMT
Sheesh. What a disappointment. I didn’t learn anything today that wasn’t in his report already except that he will no longer speak about it. I’m just leaving it to the House. At some point, they have to either decide to impeach after their own investigations or just drop it.
|
|
imsirius
Prolific Pea
Call it as I see it.
Posts: 7,661
Location: Floating in the black veil.
Jul 12, 2014 19:59:28 GMT
|
Post by imsirius on May 29, 2019 15:31:44 GMT
He's essentially saying that all the information Congress needs for impeachment is in the report. Russia interfered in the election, they did it to help Trump, Trump campaign knew (but not enough evidence to charge conspiracy), and Trump obstructed. Go get him Nancy.
ETA: I can't imagine how HRC feels knowing she was truly cheated out of the presidency. Man, I'd want to hurt the bastard.
|
|
|
|
Post by crimsoncat05 on May 29, 2019 15:34:36 GMT
Robert Mueller - “ If we had confidence the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so.” There it is. so there!!! try and spin THAT one, Bill Barr!!  (I know he will, but...) |
|
|
|
Post by busy on May 29, 2019 15:36:52 GMT
Sheesh. What a disappointment. I didn’t learn anything today that wasn’t in his report already except that he will no longer speak about it. I’m just leaving it to the House. At some point, they have to either decide to impeach after their own investigations or just drop it. Well, honestly, I think that's right. He put everything he and his team learned in the report, which is what I'd hope for. If he had some bombshells to drop that weren't in the report, I'd wonder about the report as a whole. |
|
imsirius
Prolific Pea
Call it as I see it.
Posts: 7,661
Location: Floating in the black veil.
Jul 12, 2014 19:59:28 GMT
|
Post by imsirius on May 29, 2019 15:40:09 GMT
Does anyone know if he was planning on resigning/retiring before this investigation?
|
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on May 29, 2019 15:44:38 GMT
Does anyone know if he was planning on resigning/retiring before this investigation? He was brought in to do this........... he was retired. |
|
Just T
Drama Llama
Posts: 5,555
|
Post by Just T on May 29, 2019 15:45:41 GMT
Congress it's your ball..do your job. And Barr is in Alaska, so what is he investigating there? No rush I guess! This is all such a crock of crap. Unbelievable.
How in the hell can anyone, Republican or not, be okay with this???
I truly do NOT get it.
|
|
|
|
Post by thundergal on May 29, 2019 15:51:36 GMT
Sheesh. What a disappointment. I didn’t learn anything today that wasn’t in his report already except that he will no longer speak about it. I’m just leaving it to the House. At some point, they have to either decide to impeach after their own investigations or just drop it. Here's where I'm at...at this moment. Full disclaimer that I may change my mind...AGAIN...tomorrow. The House needs to continue aggressively with their investigations. Keep them moving quickly, don't back down on deadlines, hold people in contempt when they don't meet requests and deadlines...use the full extent of congressional law to hold witnesses/parties accountable. And we move along that way. For now. |
|
|
|
Post by PeachStatePea on May 29, 2019 15:56:05 GMT
I'm annoyed with Mueller. He's saying something happened but there's not enough evidence of a crime to indict, right? Am I understanding this correctly? What is the *something* that happened??? TELL US. And if it's something extremely minor, that isn't evidence of anything criminal, then tell us that. I feel like he just muddied the waters even more and now is walking away.
|
|
|
|
Post by busy on May 29, 2019 15:59:32 GMT
I'm annoyed with Mueller. He's saying something happened but there's not enough evidence of a crime to indict, right? Am I understanding this correctly? What is the *something* that happened??? TELL US. And if it's something extremely minor, that isn't evidence of anything criminal, then tell us that. I feel like he just muddied the waters even more and now is walking away. He's saying that it wasn't an option to indict - the DOJ cannot indict a sitting president. He HAS told us all his findings. It's up to the House to take it from here. He and his team have done all that can be done as Special Counsel. |
|
|
|
Post by katiescarlett on May 29, 2019 15:59:51 GMT
I'm annoyed with Mueller. He's saying something happened but there's not enough evidence of a crime to indict, right? Am I understanding this correctly? What is the *something* that happened??? TELL US. And if it's something extremely minor, that isn't evidence of anything criminal, then tell us that. I feel like he just muddied the waters even more and now is walking away. No, he's saying that a President cannot be indicted for a crime while in office. He details all the evidence of obstruction in his report. |
|
|
|
Post by dewryce on May 29, 2019 16:01:57 GMT
I'm annoyed with Mueller. He's saying something happened but there's not enough evidence of a crime to indict, right? Am I understanding this correctly? What is the *something* that happened??? TELL US. And if it's something extremely minor, that isn't evidence of anything criminal, then tell us that. I feel like he just muddied the waters even more and now is walking away. No. He is saying conviction wasn’t an option on the table for the SCO due to current DOJ guidelines not to indict a sitting president. None of this is minor, read the report. Even the unredacted version is damning. |
|
lizacreates
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,856
|
Post by lizacreates on May 29, 2019 16:02:58 GMT
Sheesh. What a disappointment. I didn’t learn anything today that wasn’t in his report already except that he will no longer speak about it. I’m just leaving it to the House. At some point, they have to either decide to impeach after their own investigations or just drop it. Well, honestly, I think that's right. He put everything he and his team learned in the report, which is what I'd hope for. If he had some bombshells to drop that weren't in the report, I'd wonder about the report as a whole. Bombshells are not what I was referring to. What I was expecting/hoping for were clarifications on the debatable parts of the report such as the evidence on the ten or so instances of obstruction, or why he abandoned the idea of subpoenaing the president’s direct testimony, that sort. |
|
lizacreates
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,856
|
Post by lizacreates on May 29, 2019 16:04:52 GMT
Sheesh. What a disappointment. I didn’t learn anything today that wasn’t in his report already except that he will no longer speak about it. I’m just leaving it to the House. At some point, they have to either decide to impeach after their own investigations or just drop it. Here's where I'm at...at this moment. Full disclaimer that I may change my mind...AGAIN...tomorrow. The House needs to continue aggressively with their investigations. Keep them moving quickly, don't back down on deadlines, hold people in contempt when they don't meet requests and deadlines...use the full extent of congressional law to hold witnesses/parties accountable. And we move along that way. For now. That's what I want to see. Just keep investigating but be more aggressive with those who refuse subpoenas. |
|
|
|
Post by revirdsuba99 on May 29, 2019 16:16:17 GMT
Here's where I'm at...at this moment. Full disclaimer that I may change my mind...AGAIN...tomorrow. The House needs to continue aggressively with their investigations. Keep them moving quickly, don't back down on deadlines, hold people in contempt when they don't meet requests and deadlines...use the full extent of congressional law to hold witnesses/parties accountable. And we move along that way. For now. That's what I want to see. Just keep investigating but be more aggressive with those who refuse subpoenas. YES!! |
|
|
|
Post by mollycoddle on May 29, 2019 16:20:38 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by PeachStatePea on May 29, 2019 16:20:40 GMT
If all of the information needed to indict is in the report then, again, what is it? Indict on what grounds? If impeachment is on the table, what are the high crimes and misdemeanors that Trump committed? What is so damning in the unredacted report? I've not heard anything specific from anyone. Some are saying Congress needs to keep investigating to find proof but at the same time Mueller says everything we need to know is in the report, there's nothing more to find. Which is it?
I want to be done with this. If there's a crime, impeach him. If there's no evidence of a crime, stop with the impeachment talk and let the American people decide in November 2020.
|
|
sassyangel
Drama Llama
Posts: 7,456
|
Post by sassyangel on May 29, 2019 16:22:13 GMT
I'm annoyed with Mueller. He's saying something happened but there's not enough evidence of a crime to indict, right? Am I understanding this correctly? What is the *something* that happened??? TELL US. And if it's something extremely minor, that isn't evidence of anything criminal, then tell us that. I feel like he just muddied the waters even more and now is walking away. No, he’s not, he’s saying under law he can’t indict a sitting president. He clearly said if he thought the president was not, he would have said so. Seems pretty clear to me. 🤷🏻♀️ |
|
(I know he will, but...) 
