***DONALD J TRUMP HAS OFFICIALLY BEEN IMPEACHED***

1189190192194195315

Comments

  • OnWis97OnWis97 St. Paul, MNPosts: 2,554
    "THE FIELD"
    By now I trust we’ve all learned to temper our expectations...
    1995 Milwaukee
    1998 Alpine, Alpine
    2003 Albany, Boston, Boston, Boston
    2004 Boston, Boston
    2006 Hartford, St. Paul (Petty), St. Paul (Petty)
    2011 Alpine, Alpine
    2013 Wrigley
    2014 St. Paul
    2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley
    2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley
  • Halifax2TheMaxHalifax2TheMax Posts: 24,442
    Dem question: Mr. Mueller can you describe your first few meetings with AG Barr? Did AG Barr direct you to wrap up or finish the Russia investigation? Or did your investigation wrap up because you decided you and your team had exhausted every avenue of investigation?

    Repub question: Are you now or have you ever been a member of the socialist party? Communist party? How about during your service in Vietnam? Are you in love with James Comey, sir? I’d like to remind the witness that he’s under oath! Now, Mr. Mueller, can you tell this committee what you had for lunch on June 27, 2016? Would you like to see the menu I’m holding in my hand here, now in my pocket, Mr. Mueller?
    09/15/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/29/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield, MA; 08/18/08, O2 London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL; 07/01/2018, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/03/2018, Krakow, Poland; 07/05/2018, Berlin, Germany; 09/02/2018 & 09/04/2018, Boston, MA;

    "If you're looking down on someone, it better be to extend them a hand to lift them up."

    Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.

    Brilliantati©
  • benjsbenjs Toronto, ONPosts: 8,228
    Dem question: Mr. Mueller can you describe your first few meetings with AG Barr? Did AG Barr direct you to wrap up or finish the Russia investigation? Or did your investigation wrap up because you decided you and your team had exhausted every avenue of investigation?

    Repub question: Are you now or have you ever been a member of the socialist party? Communist party? How about during your service in Vietnam? Are you in love with James Comey, sir? I’d like to remind the witness that he’s under oath! Now, Mr. Mueller, can you tell this committee what you had for lunch on June 27, 2016? Would you like to see the menu I’m holding in my hand here, now in my pocket, Mr. Mueller?
    Maybe my favourite thing you've ever written - I think this is eerily close to how it'll play out. 

    On the topic of results, I think that impeachment proceedings will occur, but I don't think impeachment will be successful. I think that will produce a minor net loss on the Republican side (fear-driven), as well as a minor bump on the Democrat side (backbone-driven). Part of me wonders if Pelosi's strategy is to run out the clock so it's mid-process by the time of re-election to affect the numbers. I hope not to be right, as I would find that to be as unfair as Comey's statement far too close to voting.
    '05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2

    EV
    Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
  • Halifax2TheMaxHalifax2TheMax Posts: 24,442
    benjs said:
    Dem question: Mr. Mueller can you describe your first few meetings with AG Barr? Did AG Barr direct you to wrap up or finish the Russia investigation? Or did your investigation wrap up because you decided you and your team had exhausted every avenue of investigation?

    Repub question: Are you now or have you ever been a member of the socialist party? Communist party? How about during your service in Vietnam? Are you in love with James Comey, sir? I’d like to remind the witness that he’s under oath! Now, Mr. Mueller, can you tell this committee what you had for lunch on June 27, 2016? Would you like to see the menu I’m holding in my hand here, now in my pocket, Mr. Mueller?
    Maybe my favourite thing you've ever written - I think this is eerily close to how it'll play out. 

    On the topic of results, I think that impeachment proceedings will occur, but I don't think impeachment will be successful. I think that will produce a minor net loss on the Republican side (fear-driven), as well as a minor bump on the Democrat side (backbone-driven). Part of me wonders if Pelosi's strategy is to run out the clock so it's mid-process by the time of re-election to affect the numbers. I hope not to be right, as I would find that to be as unfair as Comey's statement far too close to voting.
    Remember Benghazi? Remember Swift Boating? Fair? The repubs haven’t played “fair” since Willie Horton. This is why dems lose, playing “fair,” “taking the high road,” and being “policy wonks.” Fuck fair during the election cycle, “fair” is for when you can actually govern and hold office. “If it’s what I think it is, I love it.” Fair?

    And I’m not attacking you Ben, it’s just like money in politics, if you want “fair,” both sides have to play by the same set of rules, the rules have to be enforced and most importantly, the voters have to hold the “teams” accountable at the polls for their teams’ play on the field. They rarely do, or are, and shame on us.


    09/15/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/29/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield, MA; 08/18/08, O2 London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL; 07/01/2018, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/03/2018, Krakow, Poland; 07/05/2018, Berlin, Germany; 09/02/2018 & 09/04/2018, Boston, MA;

    "If you're looking down on someone, it better be to extend them a hand to lift them up."

    Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.

    Brilliantati©
  • benjsbenjs Toronto, ONPosts: 8,228
    benjs said:
    Dem question: Mr. Mueller can you describe your first few meetings with AG Barr? Did AG Barr direct you to wrap up or finish the Russia investigation? Or did your investigation wrap up because you decided you and your team had exhausted every avenue of investigation?

    Repub question: Are you now or have you ever been a member of the socialist party? Communist party? How about during your service in Vietnam? Are you in love with James Comey, sir? I’d like to remind the witness that he’s under oath! Now, Mr. Mueller, can you tell this committee what you had for lunch on June 27, 2016? Would you like to see the menu I’m holding in my hand here, now in my pocket, Mr. Mueller?
    Maybe my favourite thing you've ever written - I think this is eerily close to how it'll play out. 

    On the topic of results, I think that impeachment proceedings will occur, but I don't think impeachment will be successful. I think that will produce a minor net loss on the Republican side (fear-driven), as well as a minor bump on the Democrat side (backbone-driven). Part of me wonders if Pelosi's strategy is to run out the clock so it's mid-process by the time of re-election to affect the numbers. I hope not to be right, as I would find that to be as unfair as Comey's statement far too close to voting.
    Remember Benghazi? Remember Swift Boating? Fair? The repubs haven’t played “fair” since Willie Horton. This is why dems lose, playing “fair,” “taking the high road,” and being “policy wonks.” Fuck fair during the election cycle, “fair” is for when you can actually govern and hold office. “If it’s what I think it is, I love it.” Fair?

    And I’m not attacking you Ben, it’s just like money in politics, if you want “fair,” both sides have to play by the same set of rules, the rules have to be enforced and most importantly, the voters have to hold the “teams” accountable at the polls for their teams’ play on the field. They rarely do, or are, and shame on us.


    I understand where you're coming from, and obviously (because I have functional eyes and ears) I'm aware that there's one side that's not playing fairly. I almost think of it like political precedence though - as soon as both sides play dirty, it sets a new universal standard, and not a good one (in addition to politics not needing further erosion of faith). 

    With that said, I hope that if they do go this route (which I think they likely will given that they're seeking looking active while knowing they will fail), that they put some serious faith restorative efforts in should they take power. 

    Sorry about the sloppy writing here, woke up with a brutal hangover. Need to get back to Canada and weed it away asap!
    '05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2

    EV
    Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
  • Jason PJason P Posts: 18,750
    Mueller has already stated he will only make comments on what he wrote in the Mueller report if subpoena is issued for testimony.  
  • Halifax2TheMaxHalifax2TheMax Posts: 24,442
    Jason P said:
    Mueller has already stated he will only make comments on what he wrote in the Mueller report if subpoena is issued for testimony.  
    30MM US adults can’t read above a third grade level, about half of Team Trump Treason voters.
    09/15/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/29/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield, MA; 08/18/08, O2 London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL; 07/01/2018, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/03/2018, Krakow, Poland; 07/05/2018, Berlin, Germany; 09/02/2018 & 09/04/2018, Boston, MA;

    "If you're looking down on someone, it better be to extend them a hand to lift them up."

    Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.

    Brilliantati©
  • bootlegger10bootlegger10 Posts: 13,111
    For impeachment to happen it would require a government that works.  Ours (USA) does not work.  Thus, no impeachment. 
  • Halifax2TheMaxHalifax2TheMax Posts: 24,442
    For impeachment to happen it would require a government that works.  Ours (USA) does not work.  Thus, no impeachment. 
    Impeachment is a house vote. The dems control the house. Impeachment can happen and should. Trial in the senate and a finding of guilty and censure or removal from office is a whole other matter.
    09/15/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/29/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield, MA; 08/18/08, O2 London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL; 07/01/2018, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/03/2018, Krakow, Poland; 07/05/2018, Berlin, Germany; 09/02/2018 & 09/04/2018, Boston, MA;

    "If you're looking down on someone, it better be to extend them a hand to lift them up."

    Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.

    Brilliantati©
  • OnWis97OnWis97 St. Paul, MNPosts: 2,554
    edited June 2019
    "THE FIELD"
    Jason P said:
    Mueller has already stated he will only make comments on what he wrote in the Mueller report if subpoena is issued for testimony.  
    In theory, though, that could be quite valuable, since it should contradict the things Barr said about it.

    (but, no, this ain't gonna matter)
    Post edited by OnWis97 on
    1995 Milwaukee
    1998 Alpine, Alpine
    2003 Albany, Boston, Boston, Boston
    2004 Boston, Boston
    2006 Hartford, St. Paul (Petty), St. Paul (Petty)
    2011 Alpine, Alpine
    2013 Wrigley
    2014 St. Paul
    2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley
    2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley
  • The JugglerThe Juggler Behind that bush over there.Posts: 37,283
    2019
    Jason P said:
    Mueller has already stated he will only make comments on what he wrote in the Mueller report if subpoena is issued for testimony.  
    And most of the country has not read the report so...
    chinese-happy.jpg
  • njnancynjnancy Northern New JerseyPosts: 4,968
    edited June 2019
    2019
    We only need him to state in clear terms the most important parts of the report - both Part 1 (Conspiracy) and Part 2 (Obstruction) -

    If he only reads or answers questions that relate exactly to -

    - Manafort handing over polling data from the crucial states to the Russians at the cigar bar

    - simply stating who took the 5th when questioned leaving him unable to draw conclusions in Part 1

    - the same for people who destroyed evidence, deleted texts and emails or used encrypted apps to communicate (Part 1)

    - pointing out the elements of the 4 or 5 times when Trump met all qualifications for obstruction

    - explaining how he obstructed the other 5 or 6 times and how the only way he didn't successfully obstruct was because he was either an incompetent obstructer or his administration ignored his demands.

    - how many times did people who work for him NOT listen to his orders

    - how many contacts were there between the administration/transition/campaign and Russians

    - how is this number comparable to prior campaigns and is he aware of this occurring in prior campaigns 

    = why did he fail to either indict or exonerate Trump and his family

    - if there was no DOJ policy on indicting a President in office, would he have indicted Trump

    - was there collusion between the Trump gang and Russians

    - when the President says NO COLLUSION, NO OBSTRUCTION is he correct

    - what happened to the original inquiry into whether there was a criminal conspiracy occuring between the campaign and Russia

    - was Trump ever considered to possibly be an asset of the Russian government 

    - did Trump comply completely with your office as he has stated

    - what was he asked in his written questions, why were there no questions on obstruction and what were his answers

    - do you think that Trump is a national security threat

    - what were the interactions between you and AG Barr and has he misrepresented you or your report in any way

    - did the AG cause you to wrap up your investigation

    - did you have 14 (or 16) angry Democrats working with you against Trump, is this intimidation or tampering

    - make him say that Trump obstructed justice instead of his convoluted if i could exonerate i would. People don't get that.

    - make it clear that collusion DID occur on many occasions but that is not a criminal offense - conspiracy was not met not because it was exhaustively investigated but in part because information was withheld or destroyed.



    They should give the time to the best questioners - Harris, Klobuchar, etc - people who have prosecutorial experience and know how to ask pointed questions in a simple, quick manner which will produce an answer which cannot be danced around. Others can have shorter time to ask a question, but the best should be given more time.  

    The Republicans should go first and do whatever it is that they do and then the Democrats should go. This will erase the inane direction of the Republicans and allow the Democrats to have uninterrupted time to get the facts. The first question the Democrats should ask is if Mueller has any thoughts on why the Republicans have misinterpreted his report.

    A 'you can't handle the truth' moment would be awesome - particularly to that asshole from Ohio (Jim something, brain malfunction), but it won't happen. JIM JORDAN - who doesn't own a suit. (just remembered)

    If he just reads particular parts of the report that are pinpointed by the Democrats - that would be more information of which most Americans are aware. People have no clue what is in there, they think Trump did nothing. 

    His cult will not be swayed, but normal Americans who are not paying attention to the news except for talking points here or there will get the truth instead of what AG Barr and Repubs fed the news.

    It won't be the silver bullet to Trump's ouster, but it will be watched by many millions and people will be more informed. And Mueller is not a witness that they can sully, no matter how hard they will try. 


    It should be pointed out that when he says that his report speaks for itself - not only have most Americans not read it and won't read it but most people in Congress and the administration have not read it, only the summaries if anything.  He cannot expect people to understand over 400 pages of anything, let alone a lot of legal writing. It needs to be explained and he is the man to do it.  

    Post edited by njnancy on
  • njnancynjnancy Northern New JerseyPosts: 4,968
    2019
    Most Americans wouldn't read my entire post above, so reading the Report is a ridiculous ask.
  • The JugglerThe Juggler Behind that bush over there.Posts: 37,283
    edited June 2019
    2019
    njnancy said:
    We only need him to state in clear terms the most important parts of the report - both Part 1 (Conspiracy) and Part 2 (Obstruction) -

    If he only reads or answers questions that relate exactly to -

    - Manafort handing over polling data from the crucial states to the Russians at the cigar bar

    - simply stating who took the 5th when questioned leaving him unable to draw conclusions in Part 1

    - the same for people who destroyed evidence, deleted texts and emails or used encrypted apps to communicate (Part 1)

    - pointing out the elements of the 4 or 5 times when Trump met all qualifications for obstruction

    - explaining how he obstructed the other 5 or 6 times and how the only way he didn't successfully obstruct was because he was either an incompetent obstructer or his administration ignored his demands.

    - how many times did people who work for him NOT listen to his orders

    - how many contacts were there between the administration/transition/campaign and Russians

    - how is this number comparable to prior campaigns and is he aware of this occurring in prior campaigns 

    = why did he fail to either indict or exonerate Trump and his family

    - if there was no DOJ policy on indicting a President in office, would he have indicted Trump

    - was there collusion between the Trump gang and Russians

    - when the President says NO COLLUSION, NO OBSTRUCTION is he correct

    - what happened to the original inquiry into whether there was a criminal conspiracy occuring between the campaign and Russia

    - was Trump ever considered to possibly be an asset of the Russian government 

    - did Trump comply completely with your office as he has stated

    - what was he asked in his written questions, why were there no questions on obstruction and what were his answers

    - do you think that Trump is a national security threat

    - what were the interactions between you and AG Barr and has he misrepresented you or your report in any way

    - did the AG cause you to wrap up your investigation

    - did you have 14 (or 16) angry Democrats working with you against Trump, is this intimidation or tampering

    - make him say that Trump obstructed justice instead of his convoluted if i could exonerate i would. People don't get that.

    - make it clear that collusion DID occur on many occasions but that is not a criminal offense - conspiracy was not met not because it was exhaustively investigated but in part because information was withheld or destroyed.



    They should give the time to the best questioners - Harris, Klobuchar, etc - people who have prosecutorial experience and know how to ask pointed questions in a simple, quick manner which will produce an answer which cannot be danced around. Others can have shorter time to ask a question, but the best should be given more time.  

    The Republicans should go first and do whatever it is that they do and then the Democrats should go. This will erase the inane direction of the Republicans and allow the Democrats to have uninterrupted time to get the facts. The first question the Democrats should ask is if Mueller has any thoughts on why the Republicans have misinterpreted his report.

    A 'you can't handle the truth' moment would be awesome - particularly to that asshole from Ohio (Jim something, brain malfunction), but it won't happen. JIM JORDAN - who doesn't own a suit. (just remembered)

    If he just reads particular parts of the report that are pinpointed by the Democrats - that would be more information of which most Americans are aware. People have no clue what is in there, they think Trump did nothing. 

    His cult will not be swayed, but normal Americans who are not paying attention to the news except for talking points here or there will get the truth instead of what AG Barr and Repubs fed the news.

    It won't be the silver bullet to Trump's ouster, but it will be watched by many millions and people will be more informed. And Mueller is not a witness that they can sully, no matter how hard they will try. 


    It should be pointed out that when he says that his report speaks for itself - not only have most Americans not read it and won't read it but most people in Congress and the administration have not read it, only the summaries if anything.  He cannot expect people to understand over 400 pages of anything, let alone a lot of legal writing. It needs to be explained and he is the man to do it.  

    THIS is what matters most....always has.
    chinese-happy.jpg
  • dignindignin Posts: 8,346
    njnancy said:
    We only need him to state in clear terms the most important parts of the report - both Part 1 (Conspiracy) and Part 2 (Obstruction) -

    If he only reads or answers questions that relate exactly to -

    - Manafort handing over polling data from the crucial states to the Russians at the cigar bar

    - simply stating who took the 5th when questioned leaving him unable to draw conclusions in Part 1

    - the same for people who destroyed evidence, deleted texts and emails or used encrypted apps to communicate (Part 1)

    - pointing out the elements of the 4 or 5 times when Trump met all qualifications for obstruction

    - explaining how he obstructed the other 5 or 6 times and how the only way he didn't successfully obstruct was because he was either an incompetent obstructer or his administration ignored his demands.

    - how many times did people who work for him NOT listen to his orders

    - how many contacts were there between the administration/transition/campaign and Russians

    - how is this number comparable to prior campaigns and is he aware of this occurring in prior campaigns 

    = why did he fail to either indict or exonerate Trump and his family

    - if there was no DOJ policy on indicting a President in office, would he have indicted Trump

    - was there collusion between the Trump gang and Russians

    - when the President says NO COLLUSION, NO OBSTRUCTION is he correct

    - what happened to the original inquiry into whether there was a criminal conspiracy occuring between the campaign and Russia

    - was Trump ever considered to possibly be an asset of the Russian government 

    - did Trump comply completely with your office as he has stated

    - what was he asked in his written questions, why were there no questions on obstruction and what were his answers

    - do you think that Trump is a national security threat

    - what were the interactions between you and AG Barr and has he misrepresented you or your report in any way

    - did the AG cause you to wrap up your investigation

    - did you have 14 (or 16) angry Democrats working with you against Trump, is this intimidation or tampering

    - make him say that Trump obstructed justice instead of his convoluted if i could exonerate i would. People don't get that.

    - make it clear that collusion DID occur on many occasions but that is not a criminal offense - conspiracy was not met not because it was exhaustively investigated but in part because information was withheld or destroyed.



    They should give the time to the best questioners - Harris, Klobuchar, etc - people who have prosecutorial experience and know how to ask pointed questions in a simple, quick manner which will produce an answer which cannot be danced around. Others can have shorter time to ask a question, but the best should be given more time.  

    The Republicans should go first and do whatever it is that they do and then the Democrats should go. This will erase the inane direction of the Republicans and allow the Democrats to have uninterrupted time to get the facts. The first question the Democrats should ask is if Mueller has any thoughts on why the Republicans have misinterpreted his report.

    A 'you can't handle the truth' moment would be awesome - particularly to that asshole from Ohio (Jim something, brain malfunction), but it won't happen. JIM JORDAN - who doesn't own a suit. (just remembered)

    If he just reads particular parts of the report that are pinpointed by the Democrats - that would be more information of which most Americans are aware. People have no clue what is in there, they think Trump did nothing. 

    His cult will not be swayed, but normal Americans who are not paying attention to the news except for talking points here or there will get the truth instead of what AG Barr and Repubs fed the news.

    It won't be the silver bullet to Trump's ouster, but it will be watched by many millions and people will be more informed. And Mueller is not a witness that they can sully, no matter how hard they will try. 


    It should be pointed out that when he says that his report speaks for itself - not only have most Americans not read it and won't read it but most people in Congress and the administration have not read it, only the summaries if anything.  He cannot expect people to understand over 400 pages of anything, let alone a lot of legal writing. It needs to be explained and he is the man to do it.  

    TLDR
  • njnancynjnancy Northern New JerseyPosts: 4,968
    2019
    dignin said:
    njnancy said:
    We only need him to state in clear terms the most important parts of the report - both Part 1 (Conspiracy) and Part 2 (Obstruction) -

    If he only reads or answers questions that relate exactly to -

    - Manafort handing over polling data from the crucial states to the Russians at the cigar bar

    - simply stating who took the 5th when questioned leaving him unable to draw conclusions in Part 1

    - the same for people who destroyed evidence, deleted texts and emails or used encrypted apps to communicate (Part 1)

    - pointing out the elements of the 4 or 5 times when Trump met all qualifications for obstruction

    - explaining how he obstructed the other 5 or 6 times and how the only way he didn't successfully obstruct was because he was either an incompetent obstructer or his administration ignored his demands.

    - how many times did people who work for him NOT listen to his orders

    - how many contacts were there between the administration/transition/campaign and Russians

    - how is this number comparable to prior campaigns and is he aware of this occurring in prior campaigns 

    = why did he fail to either indict or exonerate Trump and his family

    - if there was no DOJ policy on indicting a President in office, would he have indicted Trump

    - was there collusion between the Trump gang and Russians

    - when the President says NO COLLUSION, NO OBSTRUCTION is he correct

    - what happened to the original inquiry into whether there was a criminal conspiracy occuring between the campaign and Russia

    - was Trump ever considered to possibly be an asset of the Russian government 

    - did Trump comply completely with your office as he has stated

    - what was he asked in his written questions, why were there no questions on obstruction and what were his answers

    - do you think that Trump is a national security threat

    - what were the interactions between you and AG Barr and has he misrepresented you or your report in any way

    - did the AG cause you to wrap up your investigation

    - did you have 14 (or 16) angry Democrats working with you against Trump, is this intimidation or tampering

    - make him say that Trump obstructed justice instead of his convoluted if i could exonerate i would. People don't get that.

    - make it clear that collusion DID occur on many occasions but that is not a criminal offense - conspiracy was not met not because it was exhaustively investigated but in part because information was withheld or destroyed.



    They should give the time to the best questioners - Harris, Klobuchar, etc - people who have prosecutorial experience and know how to ask pointed questions in a simple, quick manner which will produce an answer which cannot be danced around. Others can have shorter time to ask a question, but the best should be given more time.  

    The Republicans should go first and do whatever it is that they do and then the Democrats should go. This will erase the inane direction of the Republicans and allow the Democrats to have uninterrupted time to get the facts. The first question the Democrats should ask is if Mueller has any thoughts on why the Republicans have misinterpreted his report.

    A 'you can't handle the truth' moment would be awesome - particularly to that asshole from Ohio (Jim something, brain malfunction), but it won't happen. JIM JORDAN - who doesn't own a suit. (just remembered)

    If he just reads particular parts of the report that are pinpointed by the Democrats - that would be more information of which most Americans are aware. People have no clue what is in there, they think Trump did nothing. 

    His cult will not be swayed, but normal Americans who are not paying attention to the news except for talking points here or there will get the truth instead of what AG Barr and Repubs fed the news.

    It won't be the silver bullet to Trump's ouster, but it will be watched by many millions and people will be more informed. And Mueller is not a witness that they can sully, no matter how hard they will try. 


    It should be pointed out that when he says that his report speaks for itself - not only have most Americans not read it and won't read it but most people in Congress and the administration have not read it, only the summaries if anything.  He cannot expect people to understand over 400 pages of anything, let alone a lot of legal writing. It needs to be explained and he is the man to do it.  

    TLDR
    No need to let me know, just go to next post. 

    I will post how I post and you will read as you read.
  • njnancynjnancy Northern New JerseyPosts: 4,968
    2019
    njnancy said:
    dignin said:
    njnancy said:
    We only need him to state in clear terms the most important parts of the report - both Part 1 (Conspiracy) and Part 2 (Obstruction) -

    If he only reads or answers questions that relate exactly to -

    - Manafort handing over polling data from the crucial states to the Russians at the cigar bar

    - simply stating who took the 5th when questioned leaving him unable to draw conclusions in Part 1

    - the same for people who destroyed evidence, deleted texts and emails or used encrypted apps to communicate (Part 1)

    - pointing out the elements of the 4 or 5 times when Trump met all qualifications for obstruction

    - explaining how he obstructed the other 5 or 6 times and how the only way he didn't successfully obstruct was because he was either an incompetent obstructer or his administration ignored his demands.

    - how many times did people who work for him NOT listen to his orders

    - how many contacts were there between the administration/transition/campaign and Russians

    - how is this number comparable to prior campaigns and is he aware of this occurring in prior campaigns 

    = why did he fail to either indict or exonerate Trump and his family

    - if there was no DOJ policy on indicting a President in office, would he have indicted Trump

    - was there collusion between the Trump gang and Russians

    - when the President says NO COLLUSION, NO OBSTRUCTION is he correct

    - what happened to the original inquiry into whether there was a criminal conspiracy occuring between the campaign and Russia

    - was Trump ever considered to possibly be an asset of the Russian government 

    - did Trump comply completely with your office as he has stated

    - what was he asked in his written questions, why were there no questions on obstruction and what were his answers

    - do you think that Trump is a national security threat

    - what were the interactions between you and AG Barr and has he misrepresented you or your report in any way

    - did the AG cause you to wrap up your investigation

    - did you have 14 (or 16) angry Democrats working with you against Trump, is this intimidation or tampering

    - make him say that Trump obstructed justice instead of his convoluted if i could exonerate i would. People don't get that.

    - make it clear that collusion DID occur on many occasions but that is not a criminal offense - conspiracy was not met not because it was exhaustively investigated but in part because information was withheld or destroyed.



    They should give the time to the best questioners - Harris, Klobuchar, etc - people who have prosecutorial experience and know how to ask pointed questions in a simple, quick manner which will produce an answer which cannot be danced around. Others can have shorter time to ask a question, but the best should be given more time.  

    The Republicans should go first and do whatever it is that they do and then the Democrats should go. This will erase the inane direction of the Republicans and allow the Democrats to have uninterrupted time to get the facts. The first question the Democrats should ask is if Mueller has any thoughts on why the Republicans have misinterpreted his report.

    A 'you can't handle the truth' moment would be awesome - particularly to that asshole from Ohio (Jim something, brain malfunction), but it won't happen. JIM JORDAN - who doesn't own a suit. (just remembered)

    If he just reads particular parts of the report that are pinpointed by the Democrats - that would be more information of which most Americans are aware. People have no clue what is in there, they think Trump did nothing. 

    His cult will not be swayed, but normal Americans who are not paying attention to the news except for talking points here or there will get the truth instead of what AG Barr and Repubs fed the news.

    It won't be the silver bullet to Trump's ouster, but it will be watched by many millions and people will be more informed. And Mueller is not a witness that they can sully, no matter how hard they will try. 


    It should be pointed out that when he says that his report speaks for itself - not only have most Americans not read it and won't read it but most people in Congress and the administration have not read it, only the summaries if anything.  He cannot expect people to understand over 400 pages of anything, let alone a lot of legal writing. It needs to be explained and he is the man to do it.  

    TLDR
    No need to let me know, just go to next post. 

    I will post how I post and you will read as you read.
    njnancy said:
    Most Americans wouldn't read my entire post above, so reading the Report is a ridiculous ask.

  • oftenreadingoftenreading Victoria, BCPosts: 11,260
    njnancy said:
    dignin said:
    njnancy said:
    We only need him to state in clear terms the most important parts of the report - both Part 1 (Conspiracy) and Part 2 (Obstruction) -

    If he only reads or answers questions that relate exactly to -

    - Manafort handing over polling data from the crucial states to the Russians at the cigar bar

    - simply stating who took the 5th when questioned leaving him unable to draw conclusions in Part 1

    - the same for people who destroyed evidence, deleted texts and emails or used encrypted apps to communicate (Part 1)

    - pointing out the elements of the 4 or 5 times when Trump met all qualifications for obstruction

    - explaining how he obstructed the other 5 or 6 times and how the only way he didn't successfully obstruct was because he was either an incompetent obstructer or his administration ignored his demands.

    - how many times did people who work for him NOT listen to his orders

    - how many contacts were there between the administration/transition/campaign and Russians

    - how is this number comparable to prior campaigns and is he aware of this occurring in prior campaigns 

    = why did he fail to either indict or exonerate Trump and his family

    - if there was no DOJ policy on indicting a President in office, would he have indicted Trump

    - was there collusion between the Trump gang and Russians

    - when the President says NO COLLUSION, NO OBSTRUCTION is he correct

    - what happened to the original inquiry into whether there was a criminal conspiracy occuring between the campaign and Russia

    - was Trump ever considered to possibly be an asset of the Russian government 

    - did Trump comply completely with your office as he has stated

    - what was he asked in his written questions, why were there no questions on obstruction and what were his answers

    - do you think that Trump is a national security threat

    - what were the interactions between you and AG Barr and has he misrepresented you or your report in any way

    - did the AG cause you to wrap up your investigation

    - did you have 14 (or 16) angry Democrats working with you against Trump, is this intimidation or tampering

    - make him say that Trump obstructed justice instead of his convoluted if i could exonerate i would. People don't get that.

    - make it clear that collusion DID occur on many occasions but that is not a criminal offense - conspiracy was not met not because it was exhaustively investigated but in part because information was withheld or destroyed.



    They should give the time to the best questioners - Harris, Klobuchar, etc - people who have prosecutorial experience and know how to ask pointed questions in a simple, quick manner which will produce an answer which cannot be danced around. Others can have shorter time to ask a question, but the best should be given more time.  

    The Republicans should go first and do whatever it is that they do and then the Democrats should go. This will erase the inane direction of the Republicans and allow the Democrats to have uninterrupted time to get the facts. The first question the Democrats should ask is if Mueller has any thoughts on why the Republicans have misinterpreted his report.

    A 'you can't handle the truth' moment would be awesome - particularly to that asshole from Ohio (Jim something, brain malfunction), but it won't happen. JIM JORDAN - who doesn't own a suit. (just remembered)

    If he just reads particular parts of the report that are pinpointed by the Democrats - that would be more information of which most Americans are aware. People have no clue what is in there, they think Trump did nothing. 

    His cult will not be swayed, but normal Americans who are not paying attention to the news except for talking points here or there will get the truth instead of what AG Barr and Repubs fed the news.

    It won't be the silver bullet to Trump's ouster, but it will be watched by many millions and people will be more informed. And Mueller is not a witness that they can sully, no matter how hard they will try. 


    It should be pointed out that when he says that his report speaks for itself - not only have most Americans not read it and won't read it but most people in Congress and the administration have not read it, only the summaries if anything.  He cannot expect people to understand over 400 pages of anything, let alone a lot of legal writing. It needs to be explained and he is the man to do it.  

    TLDR
    No need to let me know, just go to next post. 

    I will post how I post and you will read as you read.
    I was a actually thinking dignin was joking, given your comment about most Americans not reading it, but I could be wrong. 
    my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
  • dignindignin Posts: 8,346
    njnancy said:
    dignin said:
    njnancy said:
    We only need him to state in clear terms the most important parts of the report - both Part 1 (Conspiracy) and Part 2 (Obstruction) -

    If he only reads or answers questions that relate exactly to -

    - Manafort handing over polling data from the crucial states to the Russians at the cigar bar

    - simply stating who took the 5th when questioned leaving him unable to draw conclusions in Part 1

    - the same for people who destroyed evidence, deleted texts and emails or used encrypted apps to communicate (Part 1)

    - pointing out the elements of the 4 or 5 times when Trump met all qualifications for obstruction

    - explaining how he obstructed the other 5 or 6 times and how the only way he didn't successfully obstruct was because he was either an incompetent obstructer or his administration ignored his demands.

    - how many times did people who work for him NOT listen to his orders

    - how many contacts were there between the administration/transition/campaign and Russians

    - how is this number comparable to prior campaigns and is he aware of this occurring in prior campaigns 

    = why did he fail to either indict or exonerate Trump and his family

    - if there was no DOJ policy on indicting a President in office, would he have indicted Trump

    - was there collusion between the Trump gang and Russians

    - when the President says NO COLLUSION, NO OBSTRUCTION is he correct

    - what happened to the original inquiry into whether there was a criminal conspiracy occuring between the campaign and Russia

    - was Trump ever considered to possibly be an asset of the Russian government 

    - did Trump comply completely with your office as he has stated

    - what was he asked in his written questions, why were there no questions on obstruction and what were his answers

    - do you think that Trump is a national security threat

    - what were the interactions between you and AG Barr and has he misrepresented you or your report in any way

    - did the AG cause you to wrap up your investigation

    - did you have 14 (or 16) angry Democrats working with you against Trump, is this intimidation or tampering

    - make him say that Trump obstructed justice instead of his convoluted if i could exonerate i would. People don't get that.

    - make it clear that collusion DID occur on many occasions but that is not a criminal offense - conspiracy was not met not because it was exhaustively investigated but in part because information was withheld or destroyed.



    They should give the time to the best questioners - Harris, Klobuchar, etc - people who have prosecutorial experience and know how to ask pointed questions in a simple, quick manner which will produce an answer which cannot be danced around. Others can have shorter time to ask a question, but the best should be given more time.  

    The Republicans should go first and do whatever it is that they do and then the Democrats should go. This will erase the inane direction of the Republicans and allow the Democrats to have uninterrupted time to get the facts. The first question the Democrats should ask is if Mueller has any thoughts on why the Republicans have misinterpreted his report.

    A 'you can't handle the truth' moment would be awesome - particularly to that asshole from Ohio (Jim something, brain malfunction), but it won't happen. JIM JORDAN - who doesn't own a suit. (just remembered)

    If he just reads particular parts of the report that are pinpointed by the Democrats - that would be more information of which most Americans are aware. People have no clue what is in there, they think Trump did nothing. 

    His cult will not be swayed, but normal Americans who are not paying attention to the news except for talking points here or there will get the truth instead of what AG Barr and Repubs fed the news.

    It won't be the silver bullet to Trump's ouster, but it will be watched by many millions and people will be more informed. And Mueller is not a witness that they can sully, no matter how hard they will try. 


    It should be pointed out that when he says that his report speaks for itself - not only have most Americans not read it and won't read it but most people in Congress and the administration have not read it, only the summaries if anything.  He cannot expect people to understand over 400 pages of anything, let alone a lot of legal writing. It needs to be explained and he is the man to do it.  

    TLDR
    No need to let me know, just go to next post. 

    I will post how I post and you will read as you read.
    I was a actually thinking dignin was joking, given your comment about most Americans not reading it, but I could be wrong. 
    I thought it was obvious, guess not.
  • njnancynjnancy Northern New JerseyPosts: 4,968
    edited June 2019
    2019
    dignin said:
    njnancy said:
    dignin said:
    njnancy said:
    We only need him to state in clear terms the most important parts of the report - both Part 1 (Conspiracy) and Part 2 (Obstruction) -

    If he only reads or answers questions that relate exactly to -

    - Manafort handing over polling data from the crucial states to the Russians at the cigar bar

    - simply stating who took the 5th when questioned leaving him unable to draw conclusions in Part 1

    - the same for people who destroyed evidence, deleted texts and emails or used encrypted apps to communicate (Part 1)

    - pointing out the elements of the 4 or 5 times when Trump met all qualifications for obstruction

    - explaining how he obstructed the other 5 or 6 times and how the only way he didn't successfully obstruct was because he was either an incompetent obstructer or his administration ignored his demands.

    - how many times did people who work for him NOT listen to his orders

    - how many contacts were there between the administration/transition/campaign and Russians

    - how is this number comparable to prior campaigns and is he aware of this occurring in prior campaigns 

    = why did he fail to either indict or exonerate Trump and his family

    - if there was no DOJ policy on indicting a President in office, would he have indicted Trump

    - was there collusion between the Trump gang and Russians

    - when the President says NO COLLUSION, NO OBSTRUCTION is he correct

    - what happened to the original inquiry into whether there was a criminal conspiracy occuring between the campaign and Russia

    - was Trump ever considered to possibly be an asset of the Russian government 

    - did Trump comply completely with your office as he has stated

    - what was he asked in his written questions, why were there no questions on obstruction and what were his answers

    - do you think that Trump is a national security threat

    - what were the interactions between you and AG Barr and has he misrepresented you or your report in any way

    - did the AG cause you to wrap up your investigation

    - did you have 14 (or 16) angry Democrats working with you against Trump, is this intimidation or tampering

    - make him say that Trump obstructed justice instead of his convoluted if i could exonerate i would. People don't get that.

    - make it clear that collusion DID occur on many occasions but that is not a criminal offense - conspiracy was not met not because it was exhaustively investigated but in part because information was withheld or destroyed.



    They should give the time to the best questioners - Harris, Klobuchar, etc - people who have prosecutorial experience and know how to ask pointed questions in a simple, quick manner which will produce an answer which cannot be danced around. Others can have shorter time to ask a question, but the best should be given more time.  

    The Republicans should go first and do whatever it is that they do and then the Democrats should go. This will erase the inane direction of the Republicans and allow the Democrats to have uninterrupted time to get the facts. The first question the Democrats should ask is if Mueller has any thoughts on why the Republicans have misinterpreted his report.

    A 'you can't handle the truth' moment would be awesome - particularly to that asshole from Ohio (Jim something, brain malfunction), but it won't happen. JIM JORDAN - who doesn't own a suit. (just remembered)

    If he just reads particular parts of the report that are pinpointed by the Democrats - that would be more information of which most Americans are aware. People have no clue what is in there, they think Trump did nothing. 

    His cult will not be swayed, but normal Americans who are not paying attention to the news except for talking points here or there will get the truth instead of what AG Barr and Repubs fed the news.

    It won't be the silver bullet to Trump's ouster, but it will be watched by many millions and people will be more informed. And Mueller is not a witness that they can sully, no matter how hard they will try. 


    It should be pointed out that when he says that his report speaks for itself - not only have most Americans not read it and won't read it but most people in Congress and the administration have not read it, only the summaries if anything.  He cannot expect people to understand over 400 pages of anything, let alone a lot of legal writing. It needs to be explained and he is the man to do it.  

    TLDR
    No need to let me know, just go to next post. 

    I will post how I post and you will read as you read.
    I was a actually thinking dignin was joking, given your comment about most Americans not reading it, but I could be wrong. 
    I thought it was obvious, guess not.
    Sorry dignin. I didn't even think of that. (and I had to google TLDR, lol)
  • dignindignin Posts: 8,346
    njnancy said:
    dignin said:
    njnancy said:
    dignin said:
    njnancy said:
    We only need him to state in clear terms the most important parts of the report - both Part 1 (Conspiracy) and Part 2 (Obstruction) -

    If he only reads or answers questions that relate exactly to -

    - Manafort handing over polling data from the crucial states to the Russians at the cigar bar

    - simply stating who took the 5th when questioned leaving him unable to draw conclusions in Part 1

    - the same for people who destroyed evidence, deleted texts and emails or used encrypted apps to communicate (Part 1)

    - pointing out the elements of the 4 or 5 times when Trump met all qualifications for obstruction

    - explaining how he obstructed the other 5 or 6 times and how the only way he didn't successfully obstruct was because he was either an incompetent obstructer or his administration ignored his demands.

    - how many times did people who work for him NOT listen to his orders

    - how many contacts were there between the administration/transition/campaign and Russians

    - how is this number comparable to prior campaigns and is he aware of this occurring in prior campaigns 

    = why did he fail to either indict or exonerate Trump and his family

    - if there was no DOJ policy on indicting a President in office, would he have indicted Trump

    - was there collusion between the Trump gang and Russians

    - when the President says NO COLLUSION, NO OBSTRUCTION is he correct

    - what happened to the original inquiry into whether there was a criminal conspiracy occuring between the campaign and Russia

    - was Trump ever considered to possibly be an asset of the Russian government 

    - did Trump comply completely with your office as he has stated

    - what was he asked in his written questions, why were there no questions on obstruction and what were his answers

    - do you think that Trump is a national security threat

    - what were the interactions between you and AG Barr and has he misrepresented you or your report in any way

    - did the AG cause you to wrap up your investigation

    - did you have 14 (or 16) angry Democrats working with you against Trump, is this intimidation or tampering

    - make him say that Trump obstructed justice instead of his convoluted if i could exonerate i would. People don't get that.

    - make it clear that collusion DID occur on many occasions but that is not a criminal offense - conspiracy was not met not because it was exhaustively investigated but in part because information was withheld or destroyed.



    They should give the time to the best questioners - Harris, Klobuchar, etc - people who have prosecutorial experience and know how to ask pointed questions in a simple, quick manner which will produce an answer which cannot be danced around. Others can have shorter time to ask a question, but the best should be given more time.  

    The Republicans should go first and do whatever it is that they do and then the Democrats should go. This will erase the inane direction of the Republicans and allow the Democrats to have uninterrupted time to get the facts. The first question the Democrats should ask is if Mueller has any thoughts on why the Republicans have misinterpreted his report.

    A 'you can't handle the truth' moment would be awesome - particularly to that asshole from Ohio (Jim something, brain malfunction), but it won't happen. JIM JORDAN - who doesn't own a suit. (just remembered)

    If he just reads particular parts of the report that are pinpointed by the Democrats - that would be more information of which most Americans are aware. People have no clue what is in there, they think Trump did nothing. 

    His cult will not be swayed, but normal Americans who are not paying attention to the news except for talking points here or there will get the truth instead of what AG Barr and Repubs fed the news.

    It won't be the silver bullet to Trump's ouster, but it will be watched by many millions and people will be more informed. And Mueller is not a witness that they can sully, no matter how hard they will try. 


    It should be pointed out that when he says that his report speaks for itself - not only have most Americans not read it and won't read it but most people in Congress and the administration have not read it, only the summaries if anything.  He cannot expect people to understand over 400 pages of anything, let alone a lot of legal writing. It needs to be explained and he is the man to do it.  

    TLDR
    No need to let me know, just go to next post. 

    I will post how I post and you will read as you read.
    I was a actually thinking dignin was joking, given your comment about most Americans not reading it, but I could be wrong. 
    I thought it was obvious, guess not.
    Sorry dignin. I didn't even think of that. (and I had to google TLDR, lol)
    Haha, no problem. Sorry my joke was shit and went over like a lead balloon.
  • Meltdown99Meltdown99 None Of Your Business...Posts: 7,553


    LOL.  I had to post this here.  At least (so far) Trump has not said this.
  • CM189191CM189191 Minneapolis via ChicagoPosts: 6,007
    WI 6/27/98 WI 10/8/00 MO 10/11/00 IL 4/23/03 MN 6/26/06 MN 6/27/06 WI 6/30/06 IL 8/5/07 IL 8/21/08 (EV) IL 8/22/08 (EV) IL 8/23/09 IL 8/24/09 IN 5/7/10 IL 6/28/11 (EV) IL 6/29/11 (EV) WI 9/3/11 WI 9/4/11 IL 7/19/13 NE 10/09/14 IL 10/17/14 MN 10/19/14 FL 4/11/16 IL 8/20/16 IL 8/22/16 IL 08/18/18 IL 08/20/18 IT 07/05/2020 AT 07/07/2020
  • Meltdown99Meltdown99 None Of Your Business...Posts: 7,553
    Bump.  So when are they starting impeachment hearings?  
  • jeffbrjeffbr SeattlePosts: 7,091
    2017
    As soon as Pelosi grows a pair. She got spanked on immigration last week by Trump. He is currently schooling her, and it isn't a good look. At some point Dems in the House need to revisit their leadership. I thought Pelosi was standing up to him for a while. Now I think she's broken and defeated. Maybe just old. Time for some new, fresh, aggressive leadership. There are a couple of committee chairmen who seem to enjoy sticking it to Trump. Perhaps one of them would be better suited for the House leadership role.
    "I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
  • Halifax2TheMaxHalifax2TheMax Posts: 24,442
    jeffbr said:
    As soon as Pelosi grows a pair. She got spanked on immigration last week by Trump. He is currently schooling her, and it isn't a good look. At some point Dems in the House need to revisit their leadership. I thought Pelosi was standing up to him for a while. Now I think she's broken and defeated. Maybe just old. Time for some new, fresh, aggressive leadership. There are a couple of committee chairmen who seem to enjoy sticking it to Trump. Perhaps one of them would be better suited for the House leadership role.
    I think you’re going to see movement after Team Mueller testifies and some of the other outstanding issues come to a head. Things like Team Trump Treason’s tax returns, emoluments clause violations and other nefarious doings, currently classified and investigations ongoing. “You don’t sell a war in August.”
    09/15/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/29/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield, MA; 08/18/08, O2 London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL; 07/01/2018, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/03/2018, Krakow, Poland; 07/05/2018, Berlin, Germany; 09/02/2018 & 09/04/2018, Boston, MA;

    "If you're looking down on someone, it better be to extend them a hand to lift them up."

    Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.

    Brilliantati©
  • njnancynjnancy Northern New JerseyPosts: 4,968
    2019
    jeffbr said:
    As soon as Pelosi grows a pair. She got spanked on immigration last week by Trump. He is currently schooling her, and it isn't a good look. At some point Dems in the House need to revisit their leadership. I thought Pelosi was standing up to him for a while. Now I think she's broken and defeated. Maybe just old. Time for some new, fresh, aggressive leadership. There are a couple of committee chairmen who seem to enjoy sticking it to Trump. Perhaps one of them would be better suited for the House leadership role.
    I think you’re going to see movement after Team Mueller testifies and some of the other outstanding issues come to a head. Things like Team Trump Treason’s tax returns, emoluments clause violations and other nefarious doings, currently classified and investigations ongoing. “You don’t sell a war in August.”
    The lawyers have stated that if he refuses to give the tax returns after he loses the tax return lawsuit (shall means shall), then that would be a true Constitutional crisis and impeachment would have to begin. 
  • The JugglerThe Juggler Behind that bush over there.Posts: 37,283
Sign In or Register to comment.