Today, Mueller Clearly Showed Why He was Appointed by the GOP

[JoeOtterbein]

He protected the GOP at all costs. And he is obviously too frail to lead an investigation that could not only end up in the impeachment of a GOP POTUS, but also destroy the GOP for decades. Much as the impeachment of Clinton, and words of Ken Starr, set the Dem Party back for years.

There was enough proof to convict and imprison Trump for many, many crimes, well before he won his first political race.

The main reason he was allowed to get away many crimes, including admitted sexual assault, money laundering, intimidating witnesses, tax evasion, etc.. I could go one forever about the many things Trump has been accused of.

Not only on the publically known facts, but many of other crimes noted by many Dems. Including Trump critics who will still continue to defend Mueller even after his seemingly terrified testimony today.

After today, it is obvious to me that there is only one person left to protect us from further, and perhaps more demoralizing Trump displays of treason.

Let's hope she goes for the win on this one for us.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

1. Oh, bullshit.

He was carefully nonpartisan for a very good reason, and he did the Democrats a huge favor by NOT giving the GOP a reason to claim he was biased.

[JoeOtterbein]

3. Uh? Who cares what the GOP says?

Unless you are agreeing with me.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

12. I don't care what they say, but I do care that they have no factual basis

for claiming Mueller is biased toward Democrats or against Trump. Mueller didn't give them one. He was nonpartisan, just as his job required him to be. As Chuck Rosenberg pointed out earlier today, he was never out to "get" anybody, but just to uncover facts.

[JoeOtterbein]

37. I care that everyone here knows we need to impeach the MF.

But some still defend weak Repubs like the SC today.

[GulfCoast66]

89. Actually, no. Not everyone favors impeachment

And I’m not the only one by far on DU.

I don’t think it helps us in 2020.

Honorable people can disagree.

[mcar]

99. You are not the only one

Honorable people can disagree. Thanks for this.

[marble falls]

38. Not just bullshit, but damnable bullshit.

[JoeOtterbein]

69. Ha! Believe me you are not the first to damn me!

I'm sure you will not be the last!

LOL!

[Thekaspervote]

80. Bullshit is right!!

[elleng]

2. Bologna

[JoeOtterbein]

4. Why?

Not the correct line?

[elleng]

10. Not 'frail,'

and reason for not charging with crime was well-founded, tho I disagree.

[JoeOtterbein]

15. Ok, on the subjective "frail'

But I would have asked anyone who sounded that terrified, and weak, if they were ok. No one did.

[elleng]

17. Would have been highly offensive.

[JoeOtterbein]

40. Who cares about being "offensive", except someone who is too weak to defend their position? nt

[marble falls]

39. Just totaly fabricated bologna.

[bluestarone]

5. Totally DISAGREE!

You must have watched a dif hearing than i did!

[JoeOtterbein]

7. Agreed! nt

[EffieBlack]

6. I doubt Trump and the GOP feel the least bit protected by Mueller

And they certainly don’t think he’s too frail to nail them.

Did you read the report?

[JoeOtterbein]

8. No. I watched the "movie"

And it's clear the hero lost this time.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

13. Go back and read the book before you make any more

uninformed statements.

[JoeOtterbein]

18. If that is true. And Trump is guilty. Why not impeach?

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

20. That's not up to Mueller. It's up to Congress.

[JoeOtterbein]

25. Agreed. nt

[sheshe2]

41. Yet here you are blaming Mueller.

[JoeOtterbein]

44. Because I refuse to "bash" Dems? Instead of clearly placing the blame on a Repub?

Uh?

[sheshe2]

65. Uh?

Clearly from the OP you did not watch, or if you did, you did not understand what happened today. It was never his call to advocate for impeachment. Nor could he indict a sitting President. Rules are rules.

Fact is, Mueller added more nails to his coffin...why do you think the GOP on both committees went nuts!?

Hey Joe? Fact is you are bashing Dems on both committees for not doing the job they set out to do. They did it and we are one step closer.


You must have missed the follow up today on CNN. Oh, the press conference with Schiff, Nadler, Pelosi and Cummings.

THEY ARE MAKING AN AIR TIGHT CASE BEFORE THEY PROCEED!

[JoeOtterbein]

67. I hope you are correct.

History will condemn us, if I'm correct.

[sheshe2]

83. Democratic leadership, maligned as they are?

They are on it and not the spineless, uninformed leaders that some believe they are. Not saying you do, yet some feel that way. Read it on DU.

Did you watch their presser? If not, you should.


Bonus.
Adam Schiff's opening statement:

At the outset and on behalf of my colleagues, I want to thank you, Special Counsel Mueller, for a lifetime of service to the country.

Your report, for those who have taken the time to study it, is methodical and it is devastating, for it tells the story of a foreign adversary's sweeping and systematic intervention in a close U.S. presidential election.

That should be enough to deserve the attention of every American, as you well point out. But your report tells another story as well. For the story of the 2016 presidential election is also a story about disloyalty to country, about greed, and about lies.

Your investigation determined that the Trump campaign -- including Trump himself -- knew that a foreign power was intervening in our election and welcomed it, built Russian meddling into their strategy, and used it.

Disloyalty to country. Those are strong words, but how else are we to describe a presidential campaign which did not inform the authorities of a foreign offer of dirt on their opponent, which did not publicly shun it, or turn it away, but which instead invited it, encouraged it, and made full use of it?

Read More:https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/24/politics/adam-schiff-opening-statement-mueller-hearing/index.html?no-st=1564024912

Magnificent. Read the rest.

[JoeOtterbein]

84. Yes. And I heard it. We need to amplify it. Not defend a Repub who could not. nt

[sheshe2]

85. How do you amplify the findings and condemn the man's work in the same breath.

I am done.

Night.

[JoeOtterbein]

86. Nighty! Sleep tight! nt

[mcar]

100. Schiff was masterful

[TwilightZone]

9. So, you didn't watch the hearings...

and you didn't read the report.

Got it.

[JoeOtterbein]

26. Uh?

I watched at least 80%. How much did you watch?

[Control-Z]

81. 80% of which one? n/t

[JoeOtterbein]

82. CNN & MSNBC. nt

[Control-Z]

94. I was referring to the two hearings with Mueller.

The morning session on volume 2? Or the afternoon session on volume 1?

[Turin_C3PO]

11. We must have watched different hearings.

I thought his testimony was devastating to Trump.

[StarfishSaver]

16. Some people think unless Mueller behaves like the Democrats' Bill Barr, he's a sellout

Last edited Thu Jul 25, 2019, 09:28 AM - Edit history (1)

[Cetacea]

19. +1000

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

22. Probably some of the same folks who thought Michael Avenatti would have been

a great presidential candidate, belligerence apparently being the only criterion.

[StarfishSaver]

23. Indeed

[GulfCoast66]

92. Awesome! Wish I had thought of that!

Man, criticizing that man was toxic here for a while. Facts be damned! He attacked. All that seemed to matter.

Where did his staunch defenders go?

[rictofen]

97. Some still insist that he was necessary to get Cohen

It doesn't matter how many times that's been debunked here.

[JoeOtterbein]

32. Yes. He sold out today. If he didn't we would be screaming for impeachment! nt

[StarfishSaver]

33. Yeah, that's it.

[JoeOtterbein]

35. Then what is you reason for non-action and defending a Repub at the cost of non-impeachment? nt

[mcar]

102. When did he defend a Repub?

[marble falls]

43. You didn't watch it at all, did you? Where did he sell out, hows about an example?

[mcar]

101. He didn't yell, shout, or call for impeachment

So he's obs a Republican plant.

[Takket]

14. are you for real??????????????????????

Yeah... other than LITERALLY saying the durmpf would be indicted for obstruction if he wasn't president, he did a great job protecting him!

[JoeOtterbein]

27. Yes. Unless we impeach...

...Trump won today.

[marble falls]

48. BULLSHIT. Only on Fox ...

Do you really think this isn't all part of the process to get to impeachment?

What do you want a lynch party?

[JoeOtterbein]

50. LOL!

Judging by many of the posts I've seen here until today, I would say the ratings would be great!

[budkin]

21. Nope

And nope.

[JoeOtterbein]

30. Nope bak at ya!

LOL!

[democratisphere]

24. Totally disagree.

Mueller did no favors for the GOP.

Mueller did a great deed for America today.

[JoeOtterbein]

28. Why not call for impeachment then? nt

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

45. Who do you want to call for impeachment? It's not Mueller's job to do that.

If Trump is to be impeached it's because there's enough public pressure on Congress to make it happen. Have you contacted your representative and called for impeachment?

[JoeOtterbein]

47. Yes. My 3 feds know how I feel.

So. Should we impeach now based on the SC testimony today? Or not?

[George II]

74. "My 3 feds"? SMH.

[JoeOtterbein]

75. To be clear: Smucker, Toomey, Casey.

Who are yours?

[democratisphere]

55. Mitch McConnell and the majority rethuglicon Senate.

After summer recess, begin an impeachment inquiry in the House. Build the case against drumpf et al.

[JoeOtterbein]

57. Thanks for a non-hostile answer! nt

[democratisphere]

61. You're welcome.

Fight on!

[JoeOtterbein]

63. You know I will sis/bro! Thanks again! nt

[NanceGreggs]

29. WTF are you talking about?

[JoeOtterbein]

31. Excuse me? nt

[NanceGreggs]

34. Your entire OP is bullshit.

Was I clear enough this time?

[JoeOtterbein]

36. Why? Is it against your line of reasoning for non-impeachment? nt

[NanceGreggs]

42. It has nothing to do with ...

... impeachment or non-impeachment.

Your characterization of Mueller's testimony is complete bullshit. He protected the GOP at all costs? He is obviously too frail to lead an investigation?

What planet do you live on?

[JoeOtterbein]

46. By my own eyes. I wish I could follow your line of reasoning...

...but my eyes say otherwise. Sorry.

[NanceGreggs]

49. My 'line of reasoning' is simple to follow.

Saying that Mueller was protecting the GOP, or that he is too frail - whatever that means - has absolutely no basis in fact or reality.

[JoeOtterbein]

51. Halting, indecisive, unable to answer questions, when he should have known the answer.

He sounded like Trump!

[NanceGreggs]

68. I've been a court reporter ...

... for over thirty years. The vast majority of expert witnesses have to refer back to their own reports before answering a question - no one has every word of their own report committed to memory, particularly one as lengthy as Mueller's.

Mueller is not comfortable speaking in public. He was not 'unable' to answer questions - and made it clear up front that there would be questions he would not answer for various reasons.

Indecisive? Not at all.

Halting? Actually much less so than I've seen when experts testify for much less than seven hours.

[JoeOtterbein]

70. I would mention my own decades of elder-care work.

But I don't think either of our experience, is applicable to your reasoning.

[NanceGreggs]

71. I just explained to you ...

... how expert witnesses behave when being examined on their reports. If you think that's not relevant, that's fine.

Bye now!

[sheshe2]

93. Holy SHITE!

JoeOtterbein

51. Halting, indecisive, unable to answer questions, when he should have known the answer.
View profile
He sounded like Trump!

It is a 438 page investigation! It took years to compile. He had hundreds of people investigating and compiling it. You expect the man to remember every word in that filing? Instant recall? WTF? Seriously?

Unbelievable you call the man a Trump stooge for not memorizing a 438 page investigation. Only on DU.

I remember another man well. One that when I first heard him speak at debates was halting in his speech. At first I was worried, then it hit me. The man was thinking, gathering his thoughts before he spoke, he wanted his answers to be clear to all that gave a damn to listen. The mans name was Barack Obama.

[EffieBlack]

52. Eyes that haven't been laid on the report you're bashing

Ignorance and low information aren’t attributes. If you want to be taken seriously, you should read the documents you’re commenting on - or at least not admit you haven’t bothered to ...

[JoeOtterbein]

53. I guess you may have missed the "movie" of the report today.

I did not.

[EffieBlack]

59. As I said, eyes that haven't bothered to read the report

[JoeOtterbein]

62. Like I said from the beginning, I saw the "movie" today....

...did you?

[Locutusofborg]

54. Why is Trump viciously attacking Mueller today

if Mueller’s testimony was partisan? Why were the Republican members of Congress who questioned Mueller basically calling Mueller a liar, a fraud and the Democrats’ dupe in their questioning?
Mueller was even challenged because one of his top assistants had attended a Hillary Clinton fundraiser years ago!

[JoeOtterbein]

56. He would do that no matter.

Do you think he would have done anything else?

[Locutusofborg]

77. Yes

Trump was praising the Republican congressmen for protecting him from Mueller.
“Trump Says Mueller Was ‘Horrible’ and Republicans ‘Had a Good Day’”
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/24/us/politics/trump-mueller.html

[JoeOtterbein]

79. Agreed. Trump will always proclaim victory. Even if he loses in 2020.

This is exactly why we need to impeach the MF now!

[pbmus]

58. Your characterization of Director Mueller and SOTH Pelosi

Is totally wrong...why you denigrate is questionable and alert worthy.

Evidence is building to an obvious conclusion...and the Director helped build that bridge today.

He was careful not to give explosives to either side.

Your desire for prosecuting in a political environment is naive.

[JoeOtterbein]

60. An impeachment is not saying he is guilty.

It is more like an indictment.

[pbmus]

66. An impeachment is a political tool to remove a dully elected person.

It is a public indictment...

And will be used when the evidence responsibly cites enough criminal activity.

The criminals involved with this president including the president can be prosecuted outside of federal OLC guidelines as Director Mueller said.

[kcr]

72. Your OP is demoralizing

Not to mention wrong.

[JoeOtterbein]

78. Sorry. I'm here to be honest, but...

...I'm still hoping!

[George II]

73. GMAFB! Way off base.....and what about this - "publically"?

[JoeOtterbein]

76. HA!

Like no one has ever told me that before?

Are criticism free?

[highplainsdem]

87. Disagree completely.

[JoeOtterbein]

88. Anything specific? nt

[highplainsdem]

90. Sigh. If he was protecting the GOP, they wouldn't be attacking him. And as for his appearing frail,

see Preet Bharara's defense of him:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100212312021

As you've seen from the replies to your OP, yours is definitely a minority opinion here.

[JoeOtterbein]

91. Thanks. But if you read me at all, you would know I can care far less if I'm a...

..."minority opinion here." Or anywhere. No. Instead, we all need to face the truth:

Our only hope, is the only one who can protect us now. The only one of us who has the power to stop the evil of Trump. I'll leave it to you to guess who I'm talking about.

[SunSeeker]

96. It appears Warren thinks it's Pelosi.

Elizabeth Warren Pushes Nancy Pelosi On Impeachment: ‘Some Things Are Above Politics’

“We have to make clear: No one is above the law ― not even the president of the United States,” Warren said. “It is time to bring impeachment charges against him.”

Asked about Pelosi’s hesitation, Warren suggested the Democratic leader was playing politics by not moving forward with impeachment.

“l understand that there are people who for political reasons say it’s not where we want to be. But my view is some things are above politics,” she said, prompting applause from the audience. “And one of them is our constitutional responsibilities to do what is right.”

“My view is whether it would pass the Senate or not ... this is a moment in history and every single person in Congress should be called on to vote and then to live with that vote for the rest of their lives,” she added.

https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_5d38b91fe4b004b6adba4d3a

[mcar]

98. Nonsense

[TruckFump]

103. I call BS on this.

IMO, Mueller puts county above EVERYTHING. He was eligible for a 4-F status for the VN war and he went into training to defeat this and fucking volunteered. Bronze Star and a Purple Heart. He would NEVER put a political party above his country.

[LanternWaste]

104. Lot of words for a bumper sticker.

Arguments support themselves with objective evidence... bumper stickers simply make allegations and get snippy when people disagree with them-- so you certainly understand why yours cannot be considered an argument, but rather a bumper sticker placed on the back of a primer gray truck.

And no need to get snippy again as done throughout the thread...bumper stickers have their rightful place-- often dusty back roads, but I'm sure there's more.

[riverwalker]

105. Mueller in 2015, four years ago.

[backscatter712]

106. Продолжайте пропагандировать, т&