DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Mueller’s testimony ...

Well let's see.

Mueller said his report didn't exonerate Trump...

Mueller said that his report didn't indicate that there was no obstruction.

In fact, both of those turned out to be true negatives for Republicans that attempted to defend a president that also committed perjury on his written responses (per Mueller)

All that aside, All federal law enforcement agencies have said the Russians interfered with the 2016 Elections and the Mueller report confirms that.

And instead of attempting to find out more so they could take appropriate action, the Republicans made fools of themselves by acting as if it wasn't true.

Essentially, the New republican Modus Operandi is to blame the messenger if they don't like the message.

So if you peel the onion beyond the blustery overtures of Republicans, yeah, it was a bad day for the Party of Trump. For there are no republicans left.

Yeah, and Nixon was innocent too.

Don't sleep with the hogs and then whine when you end up stinking.

Mad? Nah....

Repetitive and having nothing to do with the topic? Yes.

Isn't that one of your big gripes on this board? That people stay on topic?

Then maybe when you come into threads like this you should follow your own advice.

Sticking with the actual topic..... So what do you think of all of the evidence against Trump in the Mueller report?

Don't worry. I don't actually expect you to comment on the topic of the thread you replied in.

But in the future, maybe you should refrain from asking others to do something you do very little of in the PP forum.

I'm not sure if you do or don't respect Mueller.... But think back, when he was hired to be SC, everyone on the left and right and middle swore he'd be the best man for the job. That he was reliable, honest, to the point, follows the law etc etc.

Now that he's come out and said that he didn't exonerate Trump and that trump did commit obstruction of justice (whether it worked or not isn't an issue, the attempt is the crime) Suddenly, Mueller is a bad guy that led a witch hunt and hoax

I sure wish the Trump party would make up there minds...

Sadly the BBC seems to agree with the GOPers on Mueller's testimony; "it piddled out."

The verdict on Robert Mueller’s Congress performance - BBC News

CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin scored it as a win for President Trump.
“Look at who’s winning now, it certainly seems like Donald Trump is winning between the two of them,” Toobin said Wednesday.

NBC’s Chuck Todd noted that while Mueller did deliver some substance that benefitted Democrats, “on optics, this was a disaster.”

David Axelrod, former senior adviser to former President Barack Obama, was far more critical as the morning hearing drew to a close.

“This is very, very painful,” Axelrod said

Left-wing documentarian Michael Moore had even harsher words about Mueller, and all the “pundits and moderates and lame Dems” who thought he would deliver...
"A frail old man, unable to remember things, stumbling, refusing to answer basic questions...I said it in 2017 and Mueller confirmed it today — All you pundits and moderates and lame Dems who told the public to put their faith in the esteemed Robert Mueller — just STFU from now on."

Trump’s legal team reacted to the testimony by stating that this should be the end of the discussion.

“The American people understand that this issue is over. They also understand that the case is closed,” attorney Jay Sekulow said in a statement.

interesting. this is the kind of acts that has the majority of americans wondering if the GOP needs election interference to win elections. there's no good reason to block this.

GOP senator blocks election security legislation hours after Mueller warns of Russian interference

https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/25/politics/...tion/index.html

Republican Sen. Cindy Hyde-Smith of Mississippi on Wednesday blocked the advancement of a trio of bills aimed at strengthening election security just hours after former special counsel Robert Mueller warned of the continued threat that foreign powers interfering in US elections.

Democratic Sens. Mark Warner of Virginia, Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut and Ron Wyden of Oregon had advocated for the bills on the Senate floor, asking for unanimous consent to pass the package, but that ask can be halted with an objection from any senator.
Two of those bills would require campaigns to report to federal authorities any attempts by foreign entities to interfere in US elections, and the third is aimed at protecting from hackers the personal accounts and devices of senators and some staffers.
Hyde-Smith objected to each unanimous consent request in keeping with GOP arguments that Congress has already responded to election security needs for the upcoming election.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer called out Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell in a tweet Wednesday evening.
Democrats complain Washington isn't responding to election security needs
Democrats complain Washington isn't responding to election security needs
"We need to act," Schumer wrote. "So why have @SenateMajLdr McConnell and Senate Republicans buried commonsense election security bills in their legislative graveyard?"
As part of his pair of public hearings, Mueller testified on Russian election interference before the House Intelligence Committee on Wednesday afternoon.
"Over the course of my career, I've seen a number of challenges to our democracy," Mueller said in his opening remarks. "The Russian government's effort to interfere in our election is among the most serious. As I said on May 29, this deserves the attention of every American."
"They're doing it as we sit here," Mueller later told lawmakers of Russian interference.
Hyde-Smith also tweeted about election security Wednesday night, but did not mention why she objected to unanimous consent.
"The House hearings rehashed what we already knew," she wrote. "There was no collusion. Let's move forward to fight Russian meddling, get past the partisan wild goose chases and work on issues that matter to everyday Americans."
Hyde-Smith's move is in line with past action from Republicans in the Senate. McConnell is refusing to buckle to the near constant drumbeat from Democrats -- and some in the GOP -- about the need to pass election security legislation in the wake of Mueller's report.
The Kentucky Republican, who believes strongly that elections should be primarily controlled by state and local authorities and not managed by Washington, argues that the federal government has already responded to the problems raised from the 2016 campaign and more does not need to be done at this time.
House Democrats are demanding President Donald Trump receive the same election security briefing already given to members of Congress, and cited GOP senators blocking election security in a letter delivered to the White House on Thursday morning.
Reps. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, a former chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee, and Bennie Thompson, chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, say that when they met with multiple agencies on the topic earlier this month, "None of the briefers could confirm that you have ever received a comprehensive election security briefing in advance of the 2020 Election."
"Since the beginning of the year, you have praised Senators for blocking election security measures, joked with the Russian President about election meddling, and suggested you would accept derogatory information from a foreign adversary about a political opponent and not tell the Federal Bureau of Investigation," Wasserman Schultz and Thompson wrote.
That July 10 briefing served to highlight how far federal agencies had adjusted to their new roles after Russia's 2016 election interference efforts, as well as the common assumption in the intelligence community that US elections have likely become a target for the indefinite future. In the past week, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and National Security Agency have each appointed a senior official who will focus directly on coordinating election security for their respective agency.
In public statements, Trump has waffled on whether he's accepted the US intelligence community's broadly accepted findings that Russia launched a multi-pronged interference campaign, including hacking and leaking Clinton campaign emails, successfully hacking the Illinois voter registration database and the networks of two Florida counties, as well as multiple disinformation campaigns.
"The Trump Administration has sustained an unprecedented whole-of-government effort to support state, local partners to ensure the security and resilience of the U.S. electoral process," a US official said when asked for response to Democrats' letter. The official added that "the President receives regular intelligence briefings on the many threats facing that nation, including securing our nation's elections."

Only a Trumpian would call an investigation that was lead by a Republican and that man was appointed by a Republican a "soft coup".

They have attacked a man that worked for both Bush and Reagan, appointed by someone in the Trump White House, and called everything he's done things like a hoax, a witch hunt and a coup.

Only in the land of Trump would otherwise normal people lose their frickin' minds this way.

I've watched it happen right here at this website.
I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one who has seen it, too.

There has always been lively political talk dating back to the old tailgate days, but this has been very different.

Yes it is. From both sides actually. One side makes excuses for behavior they never would have promoted, accepted nor stood for only a few short years ago.

The other side is disgusted by it.

It certainly ratchets up the heat.

Don't Feed the Trolls

It says it pretty well

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/7/24/20708503/robert-mueller-testimony-winners-losers


5 losers and 0 winners from Robert Mueller’s testimony to the House of Representatives
Yes, it really was that bad.

By Zack Beauchamp@zackbeauchampzack@vox.com Jul 24, 2019, 4:26pm EDT
Share this story
SHARE
Former special counsel Robert Mueller’s congressional testimony on Wednesday was a farce and a tragedy.

Mueller testified before both the House Judiciary Committee and the Permanent Subcommittee on Intelligence, saying very little of substance beyond what was already contained in the text of his report. He responded to questions with monosyllables or requests for clarification. According to a count by NBC, Mueller “deflected or declined to answer questions 198 times” during the two three-hour hearings.

Former Special Counsel Robert Mueller arrives to testify before the House Judiciary Committee on July 24, 2019.
Robert Mueller arrives to testify before the House Judiciary Committee on July 24, 2019. Alex Brandon/AFP/Getty Images
Democrats were hoping for more, something that would highlight the truly damning nature of Mueller’s report. But with only a couple of exceptions, Democrats failed to get big-ticket moments or even notable responses. Republicans embarrassed themselves by badgering Mueller with Fox News fever-swamp conspiracy theories. Pretty much none of this served the essential goal of enlightening the American public on the really important facts of the Mueller investigation, a look at one of the most serious political scandals in American political history.

There were, in short, no real winners from Mueller’s day on Capitol Hill. But an awful lot of people and institutions came off looking worse than they did before.

Loser: Robert Mueller
Very few living figures in American public have been as mythologized as Robert Mueller.

Democrats have built him up as a prosecutorial Superman working quietly working behind the scenes to save the republic from Trump’s lawlessness; Rep. Jackie Speier (D-CA) began her questioning by telling him “you’re the greatest patriot in this room today.” Republicans, meanwhile, have cast Mueller and the “18 (or 13) Angry Democrats” who worked for him as part of a conspiracy to undermine a duly elected president.

In the end, Robert Mueller is just a man. And that was painfully on display at today’s hearings.

Former special counsel Robert Mueller, is sworn in before he testifies before the House Judiciary Committee hearing on July 24, 2019.
Former special counsel Robert Mueller is sworn in before he testifies at the House Judiciary Committee hearing on July 24, 2019. Andrew Harnik/AP
Mueller’s answers to questions were often fumbling and imprecise, especially when discussing the second half of his report (on obstruction of justice). His answers were clipped and uninformative, and at times actively confusing.

For example, take this exchange with Rep. Ted Lieu (D-CA). Lieu asked Mueller if “the reason” he “did not indict Donald Trump is because of OLC [Office of Legal Counsel] opinion stating that you cannot indict a sitting president, correct?” Mueller replied, “That is correct.”

This was read by several observers as evidence that Mueller in fact believed Trump committed obstruction, and did not prosecute only because of the OLC guidance. Such an admission would have been a bombshell, contradicting both the report and Mueller’s previous statements, and accordingly, Democratic-leaning social media went wild.

But that’s not what Mueller meant. He was later forced to clarify his answer, explaining that he did not decide, one way or the other, whether Trump committed obstruction.

This confusion easily could have been avoided had Mueller been responsive to the questions he was asking. But he seemed to have such a circumscribed view of his own responsibilities that he didn’t want to answer questions beyond simple statements or citation of the full report. The problem, as the Atlantic’s Ron Brownstein points out, is that the report itself is long and dense — badly in need of clarification by its author:


Ronald Brownstein
@RonBrownstein
Whatever the political impact, in the #MuellerHearings Mueller has displayed a crimped understanding of his civic obligations. He has accepted essentially no responsibility for helping public understand his report, beyond the dense legalistic language in the document itself.

336
11:35 AM - Jul 24, 2019
Twitter Ads info and privacy
188 people are talking about this
The performance was so bad, in fact, that some legal experts were openly questioning whether there was something wrong with Mueller’s health.

This is the most obvious way the Mueller hearing was a mess. He clearly thinks it’s important for Americans to understand the results of his findings, even giving a whole press conference about them after the report’s release. Yet given a much bigger platform, he abdicated this vital responsibility. Mueller either could not or would not perform the essential job of enlightening the American public about an issue of vital national importance.

Loser: the House of Representatives
But Mueller wasn’t the only problem here. Representatives from both parties, in very different and non-equivalent ways, performed poorly.


Democrats came into the hearing expecting Mueller’s monosyllabic approach, which was eminently predictable given press reports that he’d stick to the report. They had hoped that asking him pointed “yes or no” questions would help establish and reinforce the damning facts of the report. This ended up making for less compelling television than they may have thought.

But it also failed to anticipate how Mueller’s hesitancy would interact with the Republican approach, which was basically to insist that Trump did nothing wrong and yell a series of baroque conspiracy theories at Mueller.

House Intelligence Committee member Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL) questions former Special Counsel Robert Mueller on July 24, 2019.
House Intelligence Committee member Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL) questions former special counsel Robert Mueller on July 24, 2019. Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images
Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL) argued that the Steele dossier, an early if overstated warning of Trump-Russia connections, was itself some kind of second-level Russian false flag. Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA) zeroed in on the theory that Joseph Mifsud, the Russian-linked professor who approached Trump adviser George Papadopoulos with an offer of Russian help, was really a “Western” intelligence operative. Rep Louie Gohmert (R-TX) submitted an article he wrote for Sean Hannity’s website into the record. (The title? “Mueller Unmasked.”)

This wild conspiracy theorizing didn’t actually undermine Mueller’s report on the substance. But the former special counsel often didn’t engage or push back against these insinuations.

“The decision was made to ignore the Republicans’ conspiracy theory-driven sideshow,” a Democratic staffer told Vox’s Alex Ward during the hearing. “We didn’t anticipate that Mueller would allow the mischaracterizations to go unanswered, but I don’t think that will impact the major takeaways from the hearing.”

It’s that last piece of judgment that I question. The “takeaways” from the hearing are whatever the people watching say they are. And Mueller’s ineffective response to the Republican assault, together with the forgettable Democratic strategy, seemed (at least to this watcher) to muddy the waters considerably.

Loser: impeachment
A lot of smart people think the Mueller report’s findings — in particular, the 10 separate examples of Trump attempting to interfere with the Russia investigation — constitute strong grounds for impeaching Trump. I’m sympathetic to this view in theory; the report supports the interpretation that the president’s campaign attempted to collude with a hostile power’s interference in a US election and the president then engaged in a cover-up afterward.


But if Mueller is supposed to be the star witness, then the case for impeachment is considerably weaker than I thought.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) speaks to reporters on July 17, 2019. The House voted to block an effort to impeach President Trump, in the first test of the divisive issue since Democrats took control of the chamber.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi speaks to reporters on July 17, 2019. The House voted to block an effort to impeach President Trump, in the first test of the divisive issue since Democrats took control of the chamber. Tasos Katopodis/Getty Images
Senate Republicans won’t kick Trump out of office. So the political case for pursuing impeachment rests primarily on the consequences of such a strategy: whether it will help turn out Democrats to vote against Trump in 2020, or prop up the rule of law by sending a message that Trump’s actions were unacceptable. But for impeachment hearings to do either of those things, they need to be effective.

Today’s hearings suggest that they might not be, that instead they could feature boring and confusing testimony from people involved in the investigation, ineffectively narrow Democratic questioning, and Republicans successfully pivoting the conversation to conspiracy theories. The House, as currently constituted, might not be a good venue for this kind of effort.

At the very least, the dreary spectacle probably will not have convinced any impeachment-skeptical Democrats to change their position. It’s a point that Larry Tribe, a Harvard law professor and a prominent #resistance Twitter impeachment supporter, grudgingly admitted:


Laurence Tribe
✔
@tribelaw
Much as I hate to say it, this morning’s hearing was a disaster. Far from breathing life into his damning report, the tired Robert Mueller sucked the life out of it. The effort to save democracy and the rule of law from this lawless president has been set back, not advanced.

9,263
12:30 PM - Jul 24, 2019
Twitter Ads info and privacy
10.4K people are talking about this
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who has repeatedly refused to hold impeachment hearings, will probably be a little pleased. But anyone hoping for some more aggressive action from the House will be disappointed.

Loser: President Trump
You might think Trump would be cheered by Mueller’s weakness and the Democrats’ weak strategy. And indeed, a Trump ally described the mood inside the White House as “euphoria” to Politico.


But the president shouldn’t be too happy: The hearing brought more attention to his unconscionable conduct over the course of the Russia investigation. And one of the few breakout moments of the day made clear that he might still end up getting indicted.

An image of President Trump and his advisors is shown as former Special Counsel Robert Mueller testifies before the House Select Committee on Intelligence on July 24, 2019.
An image of President Trump and his advisers is shown as former special counsel Robert Mueller testifies before the House Select Committee on Intelligence on July 24, 2019. Jim Watson/AFP/Getty Images
During the House Judiciary half of the hearing, Rep. Ken Buck (R-CO) asked Mueller about a potential Trump indictment on obstruction of justice charges. Specifically, he asked if Trump could potentially be indicted after he leaves office, when OLC ruling on indicting sitting presidents no longer protects him.

The former special counsel’s answer was simple: “Yes.”

This probably is not the answer the GOP members of the committee wanted. One of the key GOP arguments was that because Mueller didn’t indict Trump, he should be considered exonerated due to “the presumption of innocence” in the criminal justice system. Rep. John Ratcliffe (R-TX) was the most forceful advocate of this view.

But if Mueller still thinks Trump could be tried after he leaves office, this analysis no longer makes sense. Mueller didn’t conclude that there was insufficient evidence to try Trump, but rather that Trump could not legally be prosecuted. It’s also really bad for Trump personally: It’s now firmly established that if he loses the 2020 election, he could be charged if the next president’s Justice Department opts to pursue it.

Buck’s question damaged the Republican strategy for the hearing — an embarrassing own goal in the short term. But it also should undermine whatever confidence the president and his allies have that they will be immune from justice forever. If I had done what they did, I’d be more than a little worried.

Loser: the Mueller report
We learned, in the first half of the Mueller report, that two Trump campaign officials, campaign manager Paul Manafort and Manafort’s deputy Rick Gates, were regularly providing polling information to a Russian national whom Gates believed to be a “spy.” We learned that Trump foreign policy adviser George Papadopoulos attempted to arrange meetings between Trump and Putin, and that Trump personally approved Papadopoulos’s work on this front.

When you add these findings to what we already knew about collusion before the report’s release — like the Trump Tower meeting and Donald Trump Jr.’s remark that “if it’s what you say I love it” — it paints a damning picture of the campaign as an organization that was both actively seeking to cultivate a relationship with the Russian government and willing to work with it to acquire damaging information about its political opponents. Even if you don’t think this is “collusion,” a term with no clear meaning, it’s still shockingly poor and unpatriotic judgment.

A woman holds a copy of The Mueller Report as former Special Counsel Robert Mueller testifies before the House Judiciary Committee.
A woman holds a copy of the Mueller report as Robert Mueller testifies before the House Judiciary Committee. Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images
The obstruction section of the Mueller report is even worse than the Russia section. The 10 distinct instances of Trump actions that could constitute obstruction include repeated attempts to fire Mueller, firing FBI Director James Comey and admitting on national television that it was because Trump was angry about the Russia investigation, and instructing subordinates to lie on his behalf.

The obstruction segment of the report was so damning that many observers saw it as an impeachment referral. Mueller acknowledged that he couldn’t prosecute Trump so long as the OLC memo remained in effect, but reading between the lines, it sure sounds like he believed Trump committed obstruction and wanted Congress to go after the president in the way he couldn’t.


But that’s the kind of thing you’d know from reading the 448-page report — which is, as Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) said Sunday, a “pretty dry prosecutorial product.” The aim of the hearing, at least in part, was to bring these facts to life.

The hearing failed on that front. It failed for all the reasons we’ve discussed so far, from Mueller’s refusal to speak to Democrats’ small questions to Republicans’ obscurantism. Mueller’s refrain of “that’s reflected in the report” or “I direct you to the report” failed to do much to make his important findings sound as important and devastating as they really are.

This might be easier if everyone already knew about the report’s findings or were inclined to read it with an open mind. But in a world where people don’t read massive reports, and those who do read them with partisan eyes, Mueller and those who take his charges seriously need to work overtime to get people to pay attention. They didn’t do their duty — and independent observers didn’t do as much as they could to help them along.

Yet dems get demonized for being disgusted by it... gmab

we all lost. the hearing was a joke.

End result is that these talking heads wanted Mueller to stand up and get into a shouting match. He basically provided no spark which is bad for TV ratings... That's it.

End result, your loverboy lied about being Exonerated.. Mueller made it clear,,he wasn't.

Your Loverboy committed perjury on his written response....Mueller said so.

Your Loverboy committed acts of obstruction.... so Trump lied about that as well....

That for me was good enough.

The Mueller Probe was nothing more than a silent coup for the Democrats to take away a duly elected President of the United States!

This is a new low in this country's history by the evil progressive Anti-American Democrats and the Obama underlings still working inside the Deep State.

Mueller's testimony was a laughable event that made the Democrats look like the fools that they are.

Trump is always one step ahead of the Anti-American Democrats and they can't figure out why.

Trump 2020!

lol whats with these 'silent' and 'soft' coup nonsense?

yall will say anything i swear lol

Don't you mean by Republicans? Mueller is a Republican who was appointed to the job by a Republican. Democrats didn't start this. Republicans did.

But hey, I guess it's better to make up BS now than admit the truth.

I mean you've had a perfect example of how to do that sitting in the oval office for two and a half years now.

dont forget that the dossier the republican kept mentioning in the hearing was started by....a republican.

This is what happens when "alternative facts" turn into alternative realities... dystopian dysfunctional leadership has led to Americans actually buying into this.

Thanks, guys.... but I prefer to take a more direct approach




Oh, sweet baby Jeebus.




<---- this hides your lobotomy scar

<---- this is your truth

This hat has been proudly sponsored by QAnon.

Just imagine how much smarter you guys would look,
How much more credibility you would have today,
If only you had taken Michael Moore's advice,
and applied it to yourselves 2+ years ago.

And to think, despite all of that we still look so much smarter than you do.

They see the landscape.
They know that their policies are unpopular with the (simple) majority of Americans.
They know that they are on their way out.
They know that they can't win without cheating and gaming the system.
They are willing to trade legitimacy to remain in control.

They are desperate enough that they'll even accept help/interference from Russia.
F'ing Russia.

That whirring sound you hear is Ronald Reagan... spinning in his grave at 250 rpms.

This should turn the stomachs of any American who still cares about this country.
I still care, so that should tell you how I feel (Maalox time).

Yep - apparently legislation requiring any political candidate to disclose to federal agencies anytime they are contacted by foreign entities during a campaign is "partisan" .... good lord.

Not surprising!!



Washington Post Fact Checks Only Republicans During Mueller Hearings




Amber Athey
White House Correspondent

July 25, 2019 4:56 PM ET

The Washington Post conducted a fact check on claims made during the Mueller hearings Wednesday, but declined to review a single statement made by a Democrat.

Instead, the article, titled “Fact-checking lawmakers’ claims during the Mueller hearings,” focused solely on statements made by Republican lawmakers during Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s marathon testimony in front of the House Judiciary and Intelligence Committees.

WaPo fact checked the following Republicans: Texas Rep. John Ratcliffe, Georgia Rep. Doug Collins, Louisiana Rep. Mike Johnson, Texas Rep. Louis Gohmert, Florida Rep. Greg Steube, and California Rep. Tom McClintock.

The article declined to fact check any Democrats during the hearing, despite there being a wealth of material.

For example, one of the biggest bombshell claims during the House Judiciary hearing was made by California Rep. Ted Lieu, who asserted that Mueller did not charge President Donald Trump with a crime because of an Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) opinion stating that a sitting president cannot be indicted. (RELATED: Mueller Starts House Intel Hearing By Correcting Major Bombshell)

Mueller initially agreed with Lieu, but later corrected himself, explaining, “That is not the correct way to say it.”

“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,” Mueller said.

Mueller also pushed back on New York Rep. Hakeem Jeffries’ characterization of the report’s findings on obstruction of justice, stating that he doesn’t “subscribe to the way that you analyzed that.”

Lieu also attempted to reach a conclusion on whether or not the president obstructed justice – something Mueller specifically declined to do in his report — prompting a clarification from the special counsel.

“Based on the evidence we heard today, I think a reasonable person can conclude three crimes of obstruction of justice by the president occurred,” Lieu said.

Mueller replied, “Going through the elements with you does not meant that I subscribe to what you’re trying to prove through those elements.”

Finally, Alabama Rep. Terri Sewell claimed that three Trump campaign officials actively sought electoral help from Russia, to which Mueller declared, “I can’t accept that characterization.”

None of those statements, which were directly challenged by Mueller as straying from the facts laid out in the report, made their way into WaPo’s comprehensive fact check.


https://dailycaller.com/2019/07/25/washi...eller-hearings/

Sorry man, it is what it is....wait for the hammer to fall. It's all going to come to light, and when it does, your done.

This was your star witness. LOL

Oh that's a big steamy pile of BS... No coup,, Just the difference between Right and wrong. Trump is a criminal... Simple as that and if the Left didn't go after him, they wouldn't be doing their jobs.

I wasn't in the US at the time of the Clinton impeachment. But dang - if the GOP can impeach a guy for a BJ .... courting and accepting Russian help to win an election is something worth investigating. And that investigation lead to the multiple times Trump is noted in the report as trying to hinder, influence, hamper the investigation (obstruction)..... As Mueller said, obstruction goes to the heart of the justice system .... that is worth investigating too. Suggesting this is a coup of a deep state action is the height of irony, since there is only one person flagrantly abusing the system for personal gain and personal protection. Hopefully the truth comes out.

I suppose than man didn't walk on the moon and Elvis isn't dead.

Mueller made it plain that Trump obstructed justice. He made it plain that he could be indicted as soon as he leaves office. He made it plain that it was impossible to prove collusion when the witnesses are lying.

And all you have is to call that a coup and spout conspiracy theories?

Oh how the mighty have fallen....

He was impeached for perjury.

why do you think they fought so hard to keep Trump from testifying? He can't open his mouth without lying.

Yeah I already saw that. But do you really think it will make any difference here on this board? People don't care. Here's something else they don't care about.....

McConnell blocks 2 bills on election security on heels of Mueller warnings

One day after former special counsel Robert Mueller issued a stark warning that the Russians are actively seeking to interfere once again in the U.S. elections and called for aggressive deterrence measures, Senate Democrats sought passage of multiple election security bills only to be stopped by Republican Leader Mitch McConnell for a second time this week.

Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., accused Republicans of "putting their heads in the sand."

"Mueller's testimony was a clarion call for election security," Schumer said. "Mueller's testimony should be a wake-up call to every American, Democrat, Republican, Liberal, Conservative, that the integrity of our elections is at stake."

Mueller told House members Wednesday, at a high-profile hearing delving into the special counsel's investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 election that the Putin-led government is still at it.

"It wasn't a single attempt. They are doing it as we sit here, and they expect to do it in the next campaign," Mueller said Wednesday.

When asked about this warning, Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, agreed but he signaled that the federal government had success in stopping foreign interference in 2018.

"There's something I can hint at, but I can't go into specifics. There is interference going on, and a lot of it was going on before the 2018 election," Grassley said, referencing information gleaned from a closed-door briefing. "But what I can't tell you -- because it was a secured briefing -- is there was a lot of success stopping it."

But McConnell said Democrats were just trying to make political hay on the heels of the Mueller testimony in their attempt to bring up a House bill that would mandate the use of paper ballots in states' election systems and provide additional funding to the federal, nonpartisan Election Assistance Commission.

"This is partisan legislation from the Democratic House of Representatives," McConnell said, noting that the bill garnered just one GOP vote in that chamber and was designed to give Democrats the political upper-hand.

"It's very important that we maintain the integrity and security of our elections in our country," the GOP leader said, but he added, "any Washington involvement in that task needs to be undertaken with extreme care, extreme care and on a thoroughly bipartisan basis. Obviously this legislation is not that. It's just a highly partisan bill from the same folks who spent two years hyping up a conspiracy theory about President Trump and Russia."

But the Kentucky Republican, who is running for a fifth term in 2020, has shut down nearly every effort to bring election security to the Senate floor.

Many of the bills Democrats have sought to call up this week -- and in previous weeks -- are bipartisan.

President Donald Trump's ally, Sen. Lindsey Graham, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, has co-authored multiple bills and passed them out of committee with bipartisan support. Those bills have yet to make it to the Senate floor.

The DETER Act, for instance, co-authored by Graham and Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., would allow federal officials to deport anyone involved in election interference and refuse admittance to the country anyone found guilty of such acts.

Grassley told reporters Thursday that he wants to see that bill, for which he voted, considered by the Senate. He also added that he would favor the House bill Schumer tried to pass on Thursday if "you took out things in it that federalize state elections."

The Judiciary Committee also passed legislation to make it a federal crime to hack into a state voting system. That legislation passed the Senate earlier this month and awaits House consideration.

But McConnell has stopped other attempts to legislate around the issue.

Sen. Jim Lankford, R-Okla., a lead sponsor of an election security bill with Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., echoed the concern of many Republicans that elections remain under state control, but said he wants to see his bill passed soon, though final tweaks are being made.

The Lankford-Klobuchar bill would provide security clearances for state election officials, state-to-state cooperation regarding potential interference and encourage states to have auditable voting systems.

But Lankford made clear that there is no time to get updated election equipment into states by the 2020 election.

"I've had folks say, 'We need to hurry to get money out the door to the states so they can buy new systems, but that's just not going to happen," Lankford said, noting that there is no way to install equipment and test it in time for 2020 primaries. "It's really 2022 that we're talking about here."

Lankford did say that -- after regular briefings with the Department of Homeland Security -- he is confident in the security of the 2020 elections.

Missouri Sen. Roy Blunt, chairman of the Rules Committee -- which has oversight of elections -- agreed and said federal legislation is not needed.

"When you talk to anyone responsible for elections or for monitoring outside intervention and ask them, 'do you need any legislation you don't have,' whether that's the FBI or NSA or Homeland Security, the answer is always 'no, we don't need more legislation,'" Blunt said, adding, "And I think it's fair to say Congress is paying attention to that."

And though states have indicated that they need more money to upgrade election systems, Blunt said there are still federal dollars allocated but unspent.

"There's $382 million that's not been spent by the states yet," the chairman said.

While some Republicans feel no further action is needed, the bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee on Thursday issued a long-awaited bipartisan election security report in which both the chairman, Sen. Richard Burr, R-N.C., and vice chairman, Sen. Mark Warner, D-Va., said more needs to be done.

"There is still much work that remains to be done, however," Burr said, while touting the work federal and state officials are now doing together to harden the nation's election infrastructure.

"Our bipartisan investigation identified multiple problems and information gaps that hindered our ability to effectively respond and defend against the Russian attack in 2016," Warner said, "Since then -- and in large part as a result of the bipartisan work done on this issue in our Committee -- the intelligence community, DHS, the FBI and the states have taken steps to ensure that our elections are far more secure today than they were in 2016. But there's still much more we can and must do to protect our elections."

The report warns, "Despite increased focus over the last three years, some of these vulnerabilities, including aging voting equipment, remain. As states look to replace machines that are now out of date, they should purchase more secure voting machines. At a minimum, any machine purchased going forward should have a voter-verified paper trail."

Sen Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., joined Schumer on Thursday, and attempted to call up legislation that would mandate that any campaign official report to the FBI any foreign interference or attempted interference.

"The issue of election security goes to the core of national security. In the last national election, this nation was attacked. It was as pernicious and as invidious as any on our history," Blumenthal said.

But McConnell objected.

"This is all about the faith in this country," Schumer warned. "If we lose faith in our electoral process, democracy begins to walk away from us, and we'll be a different country."

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/mcconnel...ory?id=64569009

But as long as it helps your side win, who cares Comrade!?

And he was impeached for perjury ... because he was being questioned under oath about a freaking BJ...... so yes, perjury is bad, but to suggest that after Russia helped Trump get elected (I have no idea if Trump wins with or without Russia's help - no-one will ever know) - after 140+ contacts between Trumps's campaign and Russia ... to call the Mueller investigation bogus in comparison ... smh

Guess what chuck? We already are. More reason for you Biden and Bernie to let the young dems step in and win the fight now because your all way too weak to do it.

Well about that moon thing......