here comes.... Schiff saying Mueller wouldn't answer and implying that any question he didn't answer gives them the right to investigate themselves.

This kind of sums up today.

(07-24-2019 02:27 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  "had it been anybody else in the country they would have been indicted." How can any dem utter those words without lightning striking them?

Of course, anyone not named Clinton.

(07-24-2019 02:27 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  "had it been anybody else in the country they [sic] would have been indicted."

Something that gets lost in that statement. Had it been anyone else in the country, the he/she would not have had the constitutional authority to do certain things that Trump did, like firing Comey. Thus it would have shown criminal intent for anyone else to have tried to do it. But because Trump, as president, did have the constitutional power to do so, his doing so is not, per se, a criminal act.

Criminal intent requires something more, and is hard to establish in the absence of an underlying crime. Not impossible, but difficult, and I don't see anything that rises to the level of proving that.

(07-24-2019 01:17 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(07-24-2019 12:44 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  Mueller corrects himself: “I want to add one correction to my testimony this morning: I wanted to go back to one thing that was said this morning by Mr. Lieu — who said, and I quote, ‘You didn’t charge the President b/c of the OLC opinion.’ That is not the correct way “As we say in the report and as I said in the opening, we did not reach a determination as to whether the president committed a crime.”to say it.”

and yet Kamala Harris is out there pounding the false narrative

Well, to be fair, she's known for pounding.

(07-24-2019 02:40 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-24-2019 02:27 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  "had it been anybody else in the country they [sic] would have been indicted."

Something that gets lost in that statement. Had it been anyone else in the country, the he/she would not have had the constitutional authority to do certain things that Trump did, like firing Comey. Thus it would have shown criminal intent for anyone else to have tried to do it. But because Trump, as president, did have the constitutional power to do so, his doing so is not, per se, a criminal act.

Criminal intent requires something more, and is hard to establish in the absence of an underlying crime. Not impossible, but difficult, and I don't see anything that rises to the level of proving that.

Also lost in that statement by Schiff is the fact that it is his opinion only that there were indictable instances of obstruction of justice. I lost what little respect I had left for Mueller when he didn't pipe up and say that his report did not find several indictable instances of obstruction of justice.

Of course the media will be all over Schiff's comments (among other dems) on what they implied based on what Mueller did or did not say. The true reporting on this should be that Mueller told them to reference the report and nothing more.

bwahahahahaha dems held mock hearings to practice for today, and even included a stand-in Jim Jordan.

(07-24-2019 02:57 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  bwahahahahaha dems held mock hearings to practice for today, and even included a stand-in Jim Jordan.

What a bunch of chumps. All they do is lose.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

(07-24-2019 02:27 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  "had it been anybody else in the country they would have been indicted." How can any dem utter those words without lightning striking them?

Agree. Half the time I’m asking myself; who are the democrats talking about? Hillary and Bill Clinton?

(07-24-2019 02:29 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

Wonder who the black haired woman over his left shoulder was? She was very animated in her support for Mueller and the dims. Would even raise herself in the chair to get her mug squarely in the camera to exhibit her unabashed exuberance at anything she thought was Trump hating.

Wonder how long it will take to disseminate the talking points?

(07-24-2019 03:40 PM)SoMs Eagle Wrote:  Wonder how long it will take to disseminate the talking points?

CNN was sending them out live as it was happening..

(07-24-2019 03:40 PM)SoMs Eagle Wrote:  Wonder how long it will take to disseminate the talking points?

I'm assuming both sides had them last night.

I got bored through the "intelligence briefing" portion and had to turn it off.. did anything shocking happen?

(07-24-2019 03:42 PM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  I got bored through the "intelligence briefing" portion and had to turn it off.. did anything shocking happen?

Only that Chuck Todd is the #1 trending topic on the tweet machine.

(07-24-2019 02:27 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  "had it been anybody else in the country they would have been indicted." How can any dem utter those words without lightning striking them?

(07-24-2019 03:44 PM)fsquid Wrote:  

(07-24-2019 03:42 PM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  I got bored through the "intelligence briefing" portion and had to turn it off.. did anything shocking happen?

Only that Chuck Todd is the #1 trending topic on the tweet machine.

Trending for what? I deleted Twitter

Well, besides being a waste of time and taxpayer money, we learned that indictments should be forthcoming--against Clinton and possibly Obissmal, for obstruction of justice, which, by Mueller's own testimony and standard, they are clearly guilty of. As for Pres Trump, we learned he conducted himself admirably in the face of this absurdity, and that he helped the economy and Americans while they were trying to take him down. personal sacrifice to help America and drain that swamp--why Trump will be reelected in 2020. Four More Years!