Mueller to publicly testify before House committees after being subpoenaed

a reply to: Sillyolme

"Why dont you wait until hes not sitting anymore and see what charges they lay on him."



Some of us may not be alive in 2024.

originally posted by: Scepticaldem

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Scepticaldem

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: CynConcepts

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: chr0naut
In fact as the AG and Mueller are part of the DOJ, they are restrained by exactly the same rules and unable to indict a sitting President.

There is a difference between saying "In our opinion he committed the following crimes: X, Y, and Zzzsx.", and issuing an indictment for said crimes.

You know, like Ken Starr did for Clinton?

Sheesh... this is politics, not rocket science.

There are 10 recorded instances of Trump apparently attempting to obstruct the course of justice in the Mueller report.

Mueller, and Barr, cannot indict a sitting President. That's in the report, too.

(I'd be quite comfortable discussing rocket science, too, but that would be off topic. Not sure why you mentioned it?)

Are you referring to the recorded list of accusations that the special counsel investigated and by law have to show in their report? Basically to show what they were investigating. Amazing that with so many accusations, not a single one provided evidence so guilt.

The Mueller report was quite clear about not exonerating Trump. 'Not exonerated' means 'not cleared of guilt', but Trump was 'not convicted of guilt', either.

So Trump is not off the hook. The Mueller investigation is over but the details can be handed to other authorities to pursue.

So you wont say that after Mueller testifies Trump will be impeached?!?!??!?

Lolz🤪

I didnt think you would say that

'Can be' does not mean 'will be'.

But I'd assume that is the motivation, why Congress might want to clarify things with Mueller.

I said I didnt think you would say that already.....

Lol

So what are you doing here going on and on about?

Mueller isnt going to make Trump go away as you said he would for 3 years. At what point are you going to give up?

I don't actually claim to speak for others, and have not said anything of the sort, let alone for three years.

You are arguing against things you have made up. How valid is that?

A list of allowable questions, designed to ascertain what Mueller knew, and when did he know it.

theconservativetreehouse.com...-165535

I'd like to know more about the cellphone Bob Mueller "accidentally" left in the Oval Office after meeting with President Trump on May 16, 2017...the day before Rosenstein appointed him as Special Counsel.

a reply to: carewemust

That whole timeline is a problem for those questioning a president who was simply exercising his executive power.
There is no obstruction in trump carrying out presidential duties.

So today was extremely bad for the dEms and their hate-filled followers.

The first debates amongst the shocking field of candidates all but ensured a Trump victory in 2020

Tomorrow it gets worse. The ‘front runners’ have their democrat debates and I don’t know about you but a pedophile, an ultra rich white male capitalist who wants to be a commie and a group of racists aren’t exactly my idea of ‘front runners’

And next month, on the 17th, the President is exonerated by the very people the dimwits are hoping will oust him.

No wonder they’ve all gone a bit silent

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: tanstaafl
Guilty is guilty.... as a matter of fact an admission of guilt probably carries a bit more weight than being found guilty by strangers on a jury.

Which just speaks to your ignorance about how things work in the real world. I already explained how and why people 'plead guilty' to things they didn't do, due to threats & intimidation.

"Papadopolous got a whopping 14 days, and it looks like that will all be overturned soon,"

Overturned by whom?

Patience, Silly little one, I know it is hard...

originally posted by: Sillyolme
"Wrong. Any juror can vote their conscience, for any reason, at any time."

The conversation is about impeachment and the "jury" would be the Senate.

Doesn't matter, same principle.

They are required to take an oath or affirmation that they will perform their duties honestly and with due diligence.
So no politics. No loyatly. No my side your side.

Which shows your bias. You cannot fathom behavior that does not line up with your world view - that of bias, double-speak, and lies.

You know nothing about the concept of jury nullification. It is about the duty and responsibility of us Citizens to be willing and able to nullify bad law.

You listen and apply the laws of impeachment and if the evidence shows that the president behaved in a manner not befitting the office , or if he committed crimes then they have to impeach him.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know, I know, you want so bad for this. I know you're walking a tightrope, refusing to see the reality beneath you, waiting for you, when you fall.

originally posted by: randomtangentsrme
Lying to congress is a crime.

Only if you're under oath...

Was he under oath? If so, then I guess Silly would say they should have voted to hang him.

originally posted by: chr0naut
He frequently attended the annual, Kremlin sponsored, 'Valdai Discussion Club' in Moscow (which links him directly to Putin, who also attended). Mifsud also maintained contacts with suspected Russian intelligence operatives while living in London.

I know, that is why he was an asset.

If he was 'spying on Russia', as a US asset, he was doing it long distance.

What a silly statement. It is 2019 after all.

Mifsud is currently missing, believed to be living under a new identity (something spies have prepared as a contingency) and, as far as we know, has made no attempt to clear himself of the charges, which he could do anonymously via the press.

Or he is dead...

They confessed

Yes... because they were bankrupted and threatened - and again in the case of Flynn, they threatened to drag his son through the mud too.

and the details of the evidence that was laid out in the Mueller report

Evidence in the Mueller Report? The report that said there was no collusion?

and the guilty pleas were ratified by judicial examination in open court.

Ratified? You mean the court accepted their please? That is how it works.

"You haven't been 'found guilty', as in, guilty by a jury of your peers, if you plead."

True, but that is because you are found guilty by your own admission, the jury doesn't have to deliberate. There is still an actual court case, and a judicial questioning, and judicial review. Believe it or not, but the judicial system is trying to determine the truth of the matters before it.

sometimes, maybe, but not when the ones pleading are being railroaded and everyone knows and wants it.

Judges are highly legally trained and legally experienced. I'm sure they'd resent the inference of being a 'rubber stamp mechanism'.

Many judges are willing participants in protecting their biases and 'the system'.

"Papadopolous got a whopping 14 days, and it looks like that will all be overturned soon, and he is going to have one mother of a massive lawsuit against the Feds for withholding exculpatory evidence, malicious prosecution and other niceties.

And Flynn has fired his legal team and hired a new one and looks like will be withdrawing his guilty plea soon too."

That is not really the way the law works. One can appeal a conviction, but one has to have strong grounds to say they were coerced into a guilty plea.

Flynn hasn't been senteced yet, he can withdraw his plea anytime before his sentencing.

Papa will have to sue, but only time will tell if he will get his 'conviction' vacated.

Especially as the court case that convicts them explains that they are waiving their rights and that they are knowingly and intelligently waiving those rights.

Yes, I know, in cases like this, they do everything in their power to make it appear all nice and neat - but appearances is all that matters to these criminals.

a reply to: RalagaNarHallas

It's a bluff by the Democrats he is not going to come. They have to pretend to want him to come. It would actually hurt Dems more if he testify because he would be expose through cross examination.

a reply to: ambassado12

He has been subpoenaed and he has said he will honor the law. It is not a bluff.

They are not pretending to want him to come.
There is so much in the report that people do not know about. They want us to know about those things and they want us to hear about them from the man who uncovered and investigated them.
They are quite aware of the power of a televised hearing.

As far as his testimony hurting the dems, I am not sure what you mean by " will be exposed". Maybe you can elaborate a bit on that. Thanks.

The interesting thing is that Mueller's report did state that Trump tried to obstruct justice, but he could not indict a sitting President - it is up to Congress to impeach. But Mitch McConnel and Republicans refuse to do their job. They seem to like people who don't respect the rule of law and smear law enforcement agencies to avoid being held accountable for their actions. Conservatives also don't seem to be worried about election security as long as it benefits them. In fact, most of their philosophy is about what benefits them, consistency or logic is damned.

a reply to: tanstaafl

I am sure that happens. But that didn't happen here. We know he lied to the FBI and he admitted that he lied to the FBI.
There were other crimes he could have been charged with but his plea and agreement to testify to Muellers team kept him from having to answer for those crimes.
You are foolishly assuming that he would have been acquitted of those other charges if he had faced them because there was overwhelming evidence for them.
He was not coerced or threatened.
His son was also suspected of committing crimes so offering to take that off the table is not a threat its a gift.

You know he recently changed law teams right? Many people thought that meant that he was going to change his plea.
I notice that he has not done that but did request a sentencing delay until after the trial of his Turkish business associates. He is scheduled to testify in that trial in Virginia which begins next month .
Muellers response to that was that Flynns part in the investigation was complete and there was no need for a delay.
He had also recommended that Flynn serve no jail time because his cooperation in the investigation was significant.
That also doesn't sound like he was under any kind of duress or scorned by the investigators who would be spiteful.

a reply to: tanstaafl

Which shows your bias. You cannot fathom behavior that does not line up with your world view - that of bias, double-speak, and lies.

How does this illustrate any bias on my part? I just said they take an oath of diligence. They are not overseeing a popularity contest. If the evidence is significant they cannot simply ignore it.

a reply to: tanstaafl

Yes... because they were bankrupted and threatened - and again in the case of Flynn, they threatened to drag his son through the mud too.

The son had committed crimes. They offered to take this off the table as a peace offering. A gift as I said before.
In exchange for his cooperation.
Mueller did not fabricate the crimes or make little Mikey commit them.

a reply to: Sillyolme

There is so much in the report that people do not know about.

no there is really not
a group of hollywood stars recently read it
it was read in congress
it has been on sale for weeks

still no charges recommended
mueller will not help you on the 17th any more than he has already
he may very well hurt you tho when he has to answer for page and struczk
when he has to answer for all the dem on his team
when he has to answer when the russia portion of the investigation was complete
when he himself on camera has to say HE RECOMMENDED NO CHARGES

stock up on bactine granny this one is gonna sting

originally posted by: Sillyolme
We know he lied to the FBI and he admitted that he lied to the FBI.

No, he didn't, and the FBI agents who interrogated him even said that they didn't think he was lying, although maybe he didn't remember every little detail about some conversations he had months before... wonder how you would do under similar circumstances?

Anyway, already mentioned he fired his defense team, and he is most definitely getting ready to go on the offensive.

What I think would just be totally kick-ass is if he gets all charges dismissed with prejudice, gets a major financial compensation package for the harm done to him - then President Trump nominates him again to be his NSA (or SecDef, or something similar) after his landslide re-election next year and we gain seats in the Senate and retake the House.

Ok, maybe not totally gonna happen, but it is more likely than the Dems winning the White House.

I can just hear your head exploding now, and it is glorious (yeah, I was kidding when I was expressing concern, TDS level 6 sufferers don't deserve any sympathy, they will be getting exactly what they deserve.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
How does this illustrate any bias on my part?

Because you don't understand that...

If the evidence is significant they cannot simply ignore it.

They in fact can ignore it, if the law is bad...

But in this case it is irrelevant, since the Prez did nothing wrong...

originally posted by: Sillyolme
The son had committed crimes.

And you know this because... ah, you were part of the secret grand jury that investigated said crimes?

They offered to take this off the table as a peace offering. A gift as I said before.
In exchange for his cooperation.
Mueller did not fabricate the crimes or make little Mikey commit them.

It is called a perjury trap, set up by Comey, and prosecuted by Mueller.

Don't take my word for it, the truth is coming, Silly Reeeeeeeee

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: chr0naut

Nah, he's too honorable.

He'll turn up and answer their questions.

They might not like the answers but I'm sure he will be careful to be painfully truthful.

Honorable? Does an honorable man let innocent men for in prison for crimes he knows they did not committ to protect a monster of a man he used as an informant? Does an honorable man allow terrorist attacks to occur on US soil? Does an honorable man thwart investigations of terrorists? Does an honorable man set up innocent s? Where do you get your definition of honor?