Home » Mueller’s testimony

Comments

Mueller’s testimony — 15 Comments

  1. Presumption of innocence is only valid when the accused is a leftist. A liberal may or may not be presumed to be innocent IF they serve some useful purpose. Indeed, regardless of actual innocence, a liberal being deemed guilty may well serve a leftist agenda. As for those on the right, their POV alone dooms them to guilt.

  2. He’s testifying because Jerrold Nadler wanted more time in front of a camera, making baseless accusations.

  3. Robert Mueller has shown himself to be a pathetic figure, a man whose mind has departed the premises of his body. Apart from possibly soliciting our sympathy regarding his current plight, he has done the investigation underwritten by his name no good whatsoever.

    Chumps, marks, men abused by dupery, these can draw both our wish that they had not so suffered and our dismissal at their ignorant simplicity for allowing themselves to be so used. They must, however, forfeit our respect. Such a one is this. Evidently too proud to have withdrawn his name from a task he was never qualified to undertake, he has made his coming infamy a certainty.

  4. Just dipped into the hearing for a few minutes, and Mueller looked and acted as if he has dementia; the sitting there with your mouth hanging partly open is not a good look.

    Muller stuttered, he stumbled, he kept fumbling with his papers, and at times he appeared to be confused as to where to look, which member he was being questioned by.

    He also asked a number of times that the question be repeated, sometimes repeated more than once.

    Mueller refused to answer upwards of 125 questions, and he also claimed that he did not know who or what “Fusion GPS” was.

    Either the guy actually does have some degree of dementia, or he deserves an major award for so convincingly acting the part.

    If this is who Mueller really is–and unless this sudden apparent decline in his faculties is very recent–it’s obvious that he wouldn’t have been able to actually lead and direct this massive and complex investigation.

    So, was he just a figurehead, a guy in an expensive, dark, striped “power” suit, appointed to give the investigation a veneer of legitimacy, some gravitas, while his staff—probably lead by Andrew Weissmann–were the ones who were actually calling the shots and running the show?

    .

  5. Snow on Pine:

    You’re not the only one speculating that Mueller was just a figurehead.

    Others, of course, say he’s just acting confused.

    I have no idea which it is. But it’s quite disturbing.

  6. If Mueller is halfway down the chute into some age-related loss of mental functioning, what a brilliant choice he was as a figurehead.

    Unless, of course, if you’re later stupid enough to put him in front of television cameras.

    Then again, maybe they figured the media would cover up any such sins with a good make-up job. The media is trying.

  7. I watched the whole thing. Cringeworthy. As an old codger who is partially blind, hard of hearing, and barely able to walk I understand Mueller’s situation. In fact, by the end of the first hearing, I thought maybe someone from DOJ would throw a white towel in the room and declare Mueller unable to continue as he was no longer able to defend himself. I feel very sorry for Mueller. He was used by the Democrat establishment to provide a cover of honor and credibility to this sham of an investigation.

    It seems clear now that Mueller was only a figurehead. The finger prints of Andrew Weissmann are all over this investigation and report. Poor old Bob Mueller knew less about the issues involved than any reader or commenter here. How sad! Mueller’s reputation has been badly damaged in the service of this unsavory business. and the Washington establishment.

    Now we have news that Weissmann probably suborned perjury from a Ukrainian oligarch, Dmitry Firtash, back in June of 2017. Weissmann offered to drop Federal charges against him if he could provide damaging testimony about Trump, his family, or campaign members.
    https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/454185-how-mueller-deputy-andrew-weissmanns-offer-to-an-oligarch-could-boomerang
    Typical Weissmann tactics. That Weissmann still holds a license to practice law is just another black mark against our system of justice.

    Now watch the Dems double down. They are so blinded by TDS that they cannot stop themselves.

  8. The Federalist: Robert Mueller’s Testimony Has Been A Complete Disaster For Democrats.

    Mueller admitted during his testimony that a one-time attorney of a Hillary Clinton aide who had destroyed evidence by smashing the former top diplomat’s Blackberry e-mail devices was in charge of “day-to-day oversight” of his investigation. Others donated to her presidential campaign and even attended her election night party.

    IOW, Demos were running the show, and couldn’t come up with any evidence against Trump.

  9. Look, there are normally 2 issues:

    1. You have sufficient evidence to bring charges so you do
    2. You have insufficient evidence to bring charges so you don’t

    That pretty much covers most cases. But here you have this possibility:

    3. You have sufficient evidence to bring charges but you don’t…because of the Office of Legal Counsel opinion stating that a sitting president cannot be indicted

    So with a sitting POTUS, 1 is out of the question (in Meuller’s view, which is obviously very favorable to a sitting POTUS).

    If it were 2, he would say so. We know this because he said that about the conspiracy charge, which is not the same as saying there was no collusion.

    That leaves 3. Only, in Meuller’s view, if its 3 he’s not going to say it…because that would be unfair to the sitting POTUS.

    He is simply going to say he did not make a determination on that matter. The time to make that determination is when POTUS leaves office or thru impeachment hearings.

    Hope this clears things up.

  10. Manju:

    It’s a good thing no one asked Mueller to point to his ass and then to his elbow. His response might have been somewhat embarrassing.

    Mueller himself barely knows what’s in his report.

    The question of whether Trump could have obstructed justice has been exhaustively discussed, on this blog and all over the place, for well over a year. He did not. If you want to read liberal lawyer Alan Dershowitz on the subject be my guest.

    Of course you can find some other hack who says he did. But it’s as much garbage as everything else the Democrats have been saying about this for close to three years.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>