# Mueller Testimony



## Chuck Smith

Any thoughts on this so far???

Here is my take...

1. Nothing new has come of this.
2. He stuck to exactly what his report said.... Didn't exonerate or condemn.
3. He did look confused at time. But I think he was trying to stick to the report and not "interject" anything into his testimony. He wanted to leave everything vague.

Now both sides will come out and say... WE HAVE THEM NOW. Which on the Dem's side...it is exactly what they had before. Nothing new. They can go after Trump once he is out of office. Just like they did with Clinton. Remember Clinton's impeachment was because he lied under oath. Trump didn't do that... he never testified. So to say "IMPEACHMENT" isn't correct at all. The possible obstruction is the stuff they can go after him after he is done in office. Just like Clinton. It is a civil case not a criminal one.

Remember we are innocent until proven Guilty in criminal cases. Civil you can have just a shred of what looks like guilt and win a case... ie: OJ Simpson. Granted OJ had more than a shred of guilt. But you should get my point. Just like many things in the report don't look good for Trump... ie: telling someone to fire mueller. But then that person doesn't do it because he cant. That looks bad... but it didn't stop the investigation or slow it down one bit. The whole WIKI stuff where he said emails will come out about Hillary... then they did. See stuff like that is for a civil court to figure out. Just like they did with Bill Clinton.

But Mueller under oath and in his report when asked... Did Trump hinder the investigation... he said.. NO! So that is one direct NO from the investigator.

But now on the Reps side.... Still questions on why didn't they go or look into Steel and Fusion?? Still no answers on why... he said out of his scope of the investigation... which it wasn't. It just means they didn't look. :bop: Was this because of bias?? We don't know. But it doesn't look good when 14 of the investigators gave money to Hilary. But again that isn't saying they did anything wrong. It just means so far that we know is that they just didn't look. :bop:

Anyways.... others thoughts?

Like I first stated.... Nothing new came of this other than wasted time. :bop: One side will cry we got him... the other will cry he is cleared.


----------



## Chuck Smith

A good little read... granted from the Washington post so take it with a grain of salt.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/ ... id=DELLDHP



> Below is what we have learned so far. We'll continue to update this post.
> 
> 1. Mueller is struggling
> 
> If Democrats hoped this would be a seminal moment, they will apparently leave sorely disappointed - in large part because their star witness was no star. Mueller spoke haltingly, seemed not to remember key details and tripped over himself even when members weren't trying to trip him up.
> 
> The ranking Republican on the House Judiciary Committee, Douglas A. Collins (Ga.), began by asking him whether "collusion" was colloquially the same as "conspiracy." "No," Mueller said flatly.
> 
> Collins then pointed to Mueller's report, which states that certain legal dictionaries do regard the terms as "largely synonymous." Mueller didn't seem to have much of an answer, eventually stating that the report spoke for itself.
> 
> Later, Rep. John Ratcliffe (R-Tex.) pressed Mueller on why he said he couldn't exonerate Trump. Republicans have argued that Mueller stepped outside his mandate, when generally people who aren't accused of crimes are presumed innocent. Mueller responded that this was an unusual situation (presumably because Justice Department policy is that a president can't be indicted), but he didn't elaborate.
> 
> At another point, Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Tex.) questioned Mueller on whether he knew that former FBI agent Peter Strzok, whose anti-Trump text messages got him removed from the investigation, "hated" Trump. "I did not know that," Mueller said, adding that "when I did find out, I acted swiftly to have him reassigned elsewhere in the FBI." He notably didn't disagree with Gohmert's premise that Strzok hated Trump.
> 
> At still another point, Mueller said he was "not familiar" with Fusion GPS, the opposition research firm that funded the Steele dossier.
> 
> The strategy from Republicans suggests they weren't satisfied to point out the portions of Mueller's report that were good for Trump, despite Trump's claims that it exonerated him. They seemed to be aiming to argue that Mueller's deputies, some of whom have donated to Democrats, were actually in charge of the probe.
> 
> Mueller was even tripped up over more sympathetic questioning by Democrats. Rep. Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.) asked Mueller about a much-discussed quote from the report in which Trump says, upon learning of Mueller's appointment, "I'm f-----." Mueller said he couldn't recall who originally relayed that quote. At another point, Mueller couldn't recall which president appointed him as a federal prosecutor in the 1980s. (He guessed "Bush"; it was Ronald Reagan.)
> 
> 2. Democrats' lack of progress
> 
> This exchange with Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.) had plenty of Trump opponents excited:
> 
> LIEU: The reason, again, that you did not indict Donald Trump is because of OLC opinion that you cannot indict a sitting president, correct?
> 
> MUELLER: That is correct.
> 
> Some felt Mueller had made big news, arguing Mueller was saying Trump would have been indicted if not for that policy.
> 
> "Robert Mueller just reaffirmed in response to questioning from Rep. Ted Lieu that the only reason he declined to indict Donald Trump was because of an Office of Legal Counsel opinion stating that a sitting president cannot be indicted," the Democratic super PAC American Bridge declared in a news release.
> 
> *But it wasn't to be. At the start of the second hearing, Mueller offered a correction: He was simply saying they made no conclusion because of the OLC opinion - not that he would have charged Trump otherwise. *
> 
> The correction underscored the fact that the Democrats simply weren't getting the moment they desired from Mueller. And when they thought they had, he soon snatched it back.
> 
> 3. A small silver lining for Pelosi on impeachment
> 
> If you're House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), it may not be all doom and gloom right now. Yes, the hearings were probably counterproductive when it comes to Democrats' efforts to beat Trump in 2020, but they also would seem to help her campaign to hold off her fellow Democrats' impeachment fervor.
> 
> Some House Democrats recently forced a vote on this topic, even as Pelosi has argued that it's a bad idea. Her party was split, but most members voted against opening impeachment proceedings.
> 
> Mueller wouldn't even provide a sound bite on the topic, declining to broach the topic of impeachment when asked about the options Congress had.
> 
> 4. A couple consolation prizes
> 
> As the above shows, Democrats generally got Mueller only to restate findings from his report. That was true when Mueller said, "The president was not exculpated for the acts he allegedly committed," and when he said Trump could still be charged once he's out of office. Neither was new, despite efforts to play them up as big statements.
> 
> Democrats did get a couple big sound bites from the second hearing, though.
> 
> "The Trump campaign officials built their strategy, their messaging strategy, around those stolen documents?" Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.) asked.
> 
> Mueller responded: "Generally, that's true."
> 
> "And then they lied to cover it up?" Schiff asked.
> 
> Mueller again responded: "Generally, that's true."
> 
> Mueller was also asked about Trump's past praise for WikiLeaks, which served as a conduit for Russia's interference. He said that to call this "problematic is an understatement" and that it was "giving some hope, or some boost, to what is and should be illegal activity."
> 
> 5. He contradicts Trump on the FBI job
> 
> Trump has argued that Mueller was conflicted, in part, because he interviewed at the White House for the job of FBI director shortly before becoming special counsel. Before the hearing, reports indicated that Mueller disputed this claim, and Trump took to Twitter to challenge Mueller to testify under oath on it.
> 
> "Hope he doesn't say that under oath in that we have numerous witnesses to the . . . interview, including the Vice President of the United States!" Trump said.
> 
> Mueller did just that, twice. He stated that he visited the White House about the job search, but "not as a candidate." He later reiterated that the meeting "was about the job but not about me applying for the job."
> 
> This contradicts months of Trump's claims, and Mueller said so under penalty of perjury.
> 
> 6. The investigation wasn't shut down
> 
> There have been conspiracy theories that Attorney General William P. Barr might have shut down Mueller's probe in some way, but Mueller dispatched with them.
> 
> "At any time in the investigation, was your investigation curtailed or stopped or hindered?" Collins asked.
> 
> "No," Mueller responded.
> 
> Collins's question covered pretty much anything that could be understood as Barr reining in the investigation, so that should put this one to bed.


----------



## Plainsman

What I found dishonest was the incorrect statements democrats injected into their questions. I don't remember the ladies name, but she stated "What we have learned today etc" then went on with false claimes. I don't hope that bias partisan liberals will care about that, or want to catch that. I think they will cry we have him now, even after having turds on their face a dozen timed on the past.

Your spot on Chuck there was nothing new.


----------



## Chuck Smith

I think the big "gotcha" that you will hear or read about for days is the Ted Leui questioning and others.

Because Mueller was vague in his answers...

Leui's questioning was:



> "Robert Mueller just reaffirmed in response to questioning from Rep. Ted Lieu that the only reason he declined to indict Donald Trump was because of an Office of Legal Counsel opinion stating that a sitting president cannot be indicted," the Democratic super PAC American Bridge declared in a news release.
> 
> But it wasn't to be. At the start of the second hearing, Mueller offered a correction: He was simply saying they made no conclusion because of the OLC opinion - not that he would have charged Trump otherwise.


then there was this article....
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/ ... id=DELLDHP



> Earlier, during the Judiciary hearing, Republican Rep. Ken Buck of Colorado also asked Mueller about charging Trump.
> 
> "Was there sufficient evidence to convict President Trump or anyone else with obstruction of justice?" Buck asked.
> 
> "We did not make that calculation," Mueller said, citing the OLC opinion.
> 
> Buck later asked, "Could you charge a president with a crime after he left office?"
> 
> "Yes," Mueller replied.
> 
> "You believe that he committed - you could charge the President of the United States with obstruction of justice after he left office?" Buck continued.
> 
> "Yes," Mueller answered.
> 
> The back-and-forth added to the confusion and different analyses of Mueller's meaning, because it alternated between whether "a" president could be charged later or "the" president could be charged.
> 
> "OMG Buck just walked RIGHT into it. He seriously just gave the Democrats the clip they want. He just gave Mueller a clear and concise moment to say the only reason Trump wasn't indicted is because DOJ policy prohibited it," tweeted national security lawyer Bradley Moss.
> 
> Lawyer and former Fox News and MSNBC host Greta Van Susteren tweeted that she believed the answer was ambiguous.
> 
> "Is this answer clear? Does this mean that Mueller believes enough evidence to indict or does it mean that under no circumstances can a sitting president be indicted?" she asked.


So like I mentioned.... He could possibly be brought up after office because of the Opinion. But like the questioning from Rep Buck is that the work "a" and "the" are very key. Which again depends on which news station you watch one will have the "a" and the other will have the 'the".... LOL But again nothing is new.

Also to be honest if what I just read in the last quoted text and article.... really starts to put to bed some of this. Mueller came out and said "We did not reach a determination as to whether the president committed a crime." So again... innocent until proven guilty and they didn't reach a conclusion. So that means innocent. Or a lawyer wouldn't bring a case against it because not enough evidence to convict. So like I have stated... nothing new or concrete for "impeachment" or a criminal case. It is actually hurting that case if you ask me. Then the whole "a" and "the" thing. Re-read it a couple of times.. I know I had to... lol


----------



## KEN W

What I saw was......Trump not exonerated of committing obstruction of justice. But only because he is a sitting President.

Nothing will be done about it. Dems need to talk about other issues with this guy to get him out of office next November. :bop: :bop:


----------



## Chuck Smith

Ken....

I agree with you. Nothing new and the whole exonerate... it doesn't "clear" him of anything. But it also doesn't implicate him as well.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/exonerate

I think the word "exonerate" was used to keep confusion over all of this.

Because lets put it this way... if a Husband says, "I would love to sleep with that bartender"... then proceeds to flirt with that bartender... but never does actually sleep with her. Does that mean he is cleared of never cheating on his wife? But yet he never did cheat. Again this is in the eyes of the beholder. Wife might say yes you cheated on me because you flirted with the bartender. Husband will say no I didn't. Then everyone will have their own opinion if he did actually cheat or didn't. The husband isn't EXONERATED of cheating... ie: free and clear. Yet he isn't guilty either.

Just like trump talked about firing Mueller but never did. He told a guy to do it but it never happened. So unless the actual act happened it is hard to convict. Plus when Mueller comes out and says, "NO" to the question of... Did Trump ever hinder the investigation. Remember his answer was "NO". So the investigation kept going on at its normal pace.

Also just curious.... what other issues?

1. Stormy issue? Which has been found to be a campaign finance law violation which is a fine and not impeachment.
- Look at Obama had one and Omar....

If they really want him out of office they need to beat him on the issues. Which could be hard to do. Since he is pushing for immigration reform yet nothing is getting done. His economy is good. He is trying to get a bill passed to help lower the cost of drugs but yet it is sitting in the house waiting for a vote. The only thing I am upset with is the national debt!! We need to lower that and cut more fat from the government. :bop:

I know the whole talk about "free" stuff people are getting sick of it and even in Dem polls is showing that isn't doing well with in the party.

Also I know issues is subjective and different for everyone.... like some people think defense spending is bad while others think it is good. But just curious what other things people think will get him impeached or are you talking about election?


----------



## KEN W

I think Pelosi is right in not bringing up impeachment in the House. With Republicans in control of the Senate he won't get impeached in the Senate now. So why go down that road?

Health Insurance will be the biggest issue. But there are others.....cost of prescription drugs, Immigration, Tax cuts for the rich, tariffs making things more expensive. Tariffs crippling farmers, etc. :bop:


----------



## Chuck Smith

Ken...

Those are good talking points and things that need to be addressed.

the tariffs on farmers... that is being addressed with the bill sitting on the house floor that wont or isn't being brought up because of political BS. Same goes for the ratification of the Mexico/Canada Trade deal... is this the presidents fault that it is sitting there on the house floor waiting for a vote or ratification?

But yes the China trade issue and tariffs.... are they working or not and will a trade deal be done?? That is a great talking point and issue.

Tax cuts for rich... well I know I went over that over and over when the tax bill was being introduced. But there is argument or an issue there. But remember that this country was founded on people getting taxed too much by a government. oke: 
But that is a good issue and depends on what side of the coin you sit on. :beer:

cost of drugs.... again a bill to help lower the costs is sitting on the house floor waiting for a vote.... is that the presidents fault?

I think immigration will be huge issue. Because trump talks how he wants a new plan yet really hasn't laid one out yet. Just talks he wants reform. Neither party is doing its job on this one... IMHO. They haven't for years (not a dig on Obama because it was even way before him an issue.)

Another issue that isn't getting much hype is infrastructure... ie: roads and other things. I know lots of that is on states but they get money from the fed. This is falling apart.

Then the debt... nobody is talking about that. How spending keeps going up and up and up. But this also goes towards tax cuts because now we are not bringing in the money on the direct income tax line. We have to wait and see if it becomes circular with consumer spending and sales tax and future income tax. Which is about a 10+ year cycle before we know if it does what Trump said it would do....ie: we then come up again for vote.

I think an issue nobody is talking about is all this stuff with big tech, google, facebook, etc. The whole net issue and using data or peoples info. Also even blocking stuff or banning certain things. Because people are using these products and that product is forcing your media and what not... ie: pushing you to certain things. So it is a sticky situation of freedom of press (information) along with privacy issues.

Also agree with Pelosi... and no I am not drunk... LOL But it isn't the right time for impeachment. The "smoking" gun isn't there like it was with Nixon. Clinton they had a smoking gun but the whole "charging a sitting president" played into it. Hence the civil suit once he was out of office. Because he was caught lying under oath. Which what was the whole impeachment hearings were about. Not that he had sex with Monica. Which back then the Conservative media kept trying to drive home that narrative.


----------



## KEN W

When Mueller was asked if he could go after Trump after he left office.....He clearly said....."YES"

Chuck......I'm not drunk either.....I agree with Trump on immigration.....everything he is trying to do except his useless wall.


----------



## Chuck Smith

ken...

You are correct and I am saying that is the case too. There is enough to go after him but that doesn't mean he is guilty. It is enough to start a case or bring charges. Remember just because you bring up charges doesn't mean you are guilty. :bop:

Remember if there was enough to "prosecute" him now they would have said so in the report. Hence I keep bring up OJ. Not enough criminally get a conviction. Did he look guilty.... yep.. why did he run in the white bronco if innocent? But did they get a conviction... NOPE. Did they go after him in a civil suit.. and did they "win" that suit... YEP.

The impeachment angle or argument is for "after" office. Just like Clinton. It is in the "civil" side of it not criminal. Nixon was more criminal.

ALso just read an article about a Michigan Rep not trying for re-election in 2020....

This is a great quote and the problems going on now in Washington.... this is for all sides!!!



> "A career in Washington has never been my objective. My objective has always been simply to work to address significant challenges this nation faces: health care, immigration, and infrastructure for example," Mitchell said. "However, it appears to me that rhetoric overwhelms policy, and politics consumes much of the oxygen in this city."


----------



## KEN W

Chuck......I'm not drunk either.....I agree with Trump on immigration.....everything he is trying to do except his useless wall.


----------



## Chuck Smith

Ken...

I used to be a guy that thought the wall was stupid. But with more and more people "rushing" and trying to cross... I am starting to lean that way. Still don't like it or think it is the answer.... but am listening more to it. Also my hang up is... where will the money come from??? We don't need more spending. :beer:

But I agree it isn't the cure all or fix. :beer:


----------



## Plainsman

KEN W said:


> What I saw was......Trump not exonerated of committing obstruction of justice. But only because he is a sitting President.
> 
> Nothing will be done about it. Dems need to talk about other issues with this guy to get him out of office next November. :bop: :bop:


Mueller was asked if he could name anyone in history who when they were not indicted were not exonerated. Turns out no one because in our legal system if you are not charged you are exonerated.

Ken your absolutely right the democrats need to talk about something else. How to maintain the current great economy would be good. How to secure the border would be good. They need to get over the butt hurt and look forward not backward.


----------



## north1

It was VERY obvious Mueller didn't write the report and I don't think he even read it. He was bumbling, stumbling, forgetful, old, tired and used up. Or just plain senile. Clearly the deranged with Trump hate prosecutors(dem and rep) held the reins on this wagon full of excrement. Also.

You need to be charged and tried in a court of law to be exonerated. So if there is no evidence to charge someone with a crime they are INNOCENT not exonerated.


----------



## huntin1

The Dems are going to continue with the same narrative of the past three years. The leaders of the Democratic Party are so affected by TDS that they can't help themselves.

And they will accomplish that which they fear the most, Trump reelected to a second term.


----------



## Plainsman

Since the Mueller testimony was more excrement on the face of democrats what's the next exciting thing? I think the next exciting thing will be the Palestinians all stirred up with the visit of Tlaib and Omar. Israel better have extra security because there will be more exploding vests in the near future. These two fools who are half of the new face of the democrat party and are the gift that keeps on giving. No one can secure Trumps victory in 2020 like the squad of four. Keep investigating Trump too that will help.


----------



## KEN W

Next thing is executing death row prisoners. 5 up next in federal prisons. Last federal prisoner was in 2003.Sixty-one awaiting death penalty in federal prison. About time they get after it.

Who executes the most?????China and Iran by far. Not surprising.


----------



## Chuck Smith

Ken...

You talking about Barr and the death penalty thing?

I agree don't waste tax payers times and money housing these guys if the crimes are that bad. But I also know the appeals process takes for ever as well. uke:

Also I saw the house finally voted on a bill to help out farmers. Well sort of... helps keep people in farming with some aid option and also "bankruptcy" options. I know the bankruptcy thing sounds negative. But in fact some times it is a good option.. .helps you restructure your debt and manage payments and interest rates. Granted it isn't the greatest thing but is a tool that can help. I know developers that have done this during the housing bubble burst. Now they are doing good with the boom. But again finally something that got passed in the house. Now move on to ratification of the mexico/Canada trade deal. Which in it has those places buying more crops and milk from the USA farmers. Also puts a damper on some of our imports from them.... ie: balances out NATFA a little better. :bop:


----------



## Chuck Smith

A good little talking points coming out more and more after this.

1. Was Mueller really leading this investigation?
- ie: was he just a figure head and others doing all of the work.

2. If he wasn't the "lead" who was?
- Just because of the political ties of some of the people.

3. When Barr testified that he got a letter from Mueller instead of a phone call. Then when he called Mueller and talked about that letter.... Who wrote the letter?

Granted these are just follow up questions. Especially when Mueller didn't look into Fusion and Steele. We need to know why? We also need to know where the "leaks" were coming from. Which was brought out yesterday... leaking certain things found in the report... ie: meetings and what not. Who leaked them and why???

Yet we are finding out more and more that there was "ties" to Russia with them. Which is exactly the scope of this whole investigation. Because they found Russian interference across the board. Which is good... now we need to block that or combat that.... (Which is why I am scratching my head on why a GOP Senator stopped a bill today in the Senate.. but I need to read more on that or what the was in that bill)

Another reason why is because some of the investigators had ties to the Clinton Foundation and donated to the campaign of Hillary Clinton. Some were not a $100 donation. Which again isn't saying they couldn't do their jobs but it could show bias if there was bias. Again this is subjective. LIke saying a umpire who graduated from a HS over 30 years ago comes back to do a game and a close call happens. Someone will think a bias was there.... could there been or maybe not?? :bop:


----------



## Chuck Smith

Another little tidbit that I have been reading on multiple places.

1. People keep talking how Mueller was a "fumbling and bumbling". Well was that his plan since he knew everyone was on a time limit. So to ask for "can you repeat that" helped waist time.

Is it showing how he didn't want to be there at all.

Again this has nothing to do with evidence on either side. But I just thought it is a curious take on the media hoopla on this. Like I mentioned I thought that he was doing that more or less to make sure he thought over his responses so that it was exactly the same as the report.... ie: like he mentioned his report is his testimony. So that is why he was "fumbling and bumbling" or even why he didn't answer certain things.. ie: steel dossier questions.... because it wasn't in the report and he didn't want to stray from his report. Which is a great legal mind at work IMHO.... vague answers and let your written work speak for itself.


----------



## huntin1

This would be funny, but instead it's a sad commentary on what liberals actually believe.


----------



## Plainsman

> Especially when Mueller didn't look into Fusion and Steele. We need to know why?


 I would like to know that. He kept saying it wasn't in his purview. If his purview was to look into Russian interference/collusion why would they only concentrate on Trump if they were not bias?


----------



## Plainsman

KEN W said:


> Chuck......I'm not drunk either.....I agree with Trump on immigration.....everything he is trying to do except his useless wall.


The wall isn't magic it's only one tool of many. If you go purchase a socket set for mechanical work you don't look for a set that doesn't have a 1/2 inch socket.They


----------



## KEN W

Plainsman said:


> KEN W said:
> 
> 
> 
> Chuck......I'm not drunk either.....I agree with Trump on immigration.....everything he is trying to do except his useless wall.
> 
> 
> 
> The wall isn't magic it's only one tool of many. If you go purchase a socket set for mechanical work you don't look for a set that doesn't have a 1/2 inch socket.They
Click to expand...

 :shake: :shake:


----------



## Chuck Smith

> I would like to know that. He kept saying it wasn't in his purview. If his purview was to look into Russian interference/collusion why would they only concentrate on Trump if they were not bias?


Also with this note is that they did find or looked into the Russian interference and found it was rampant on all fronts. I honestly think that once they saw a direction they didn't want to go down they stopped. Then kept digging at the direction they wished things would go but found nada.

That is why we need the answers because if there was bias it needs to come out. Which again like I mentioned earlier... it doesn't look good because of the people who donated to the Clinton Foundation and Campaign were some of the leads investigators. I will also say that doesn't mean they didn't do their jobs but it does draw up questions like we mentioned with Fusion and what not. Also this mysterious professor or doctor they were bringing up. The guy who people thought "entrapped" some or what ever he did.

Huntn1.....
You are correct that is sad but true. They said Hillary didn't "intend" to do what she did. So will that be the "argument" for Trumps team who was using personal email for business. Since the House Dem's are now going after them or the emails.


----------



## huntin1

Obstruction of justice?

Senate hearing, under oath:

COLLINS:
At any time in the investigation, was your investigation curtailed or stopped or hindered?

MUELLER:
No.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politi...e-testimony-n1033216

Do the Democrats have a different definition of obstruction? Or am I missing something?

It would appear to me that Mueller clearly stated, under oath, that his investigation wasn't obstructed in any way.


----------



## Chuck Smith

Obstructed or hindered.... both he stated "NO".

I totally agree with you on how the media keeps saying obstructed and hindered. When Mueller clearly under oath said "NO". to those two questions.

The question to this whole mess is when Trump "instructed" a guy to fire Mueller and he didn't. Was Trump trying to obstruct or not. There is an argument both ways on this. Yes he was because trying to fire the chief investigator. Or no it wasn't obstruction because he did it because it was taking too long. But now that it is coming to light that Mueller really wasn't the "lead" on this was more of a figure head... ie: He didn't write the report someone else did. Now is the "order" of firing Mueller still obstruction?? That is why the whole Obstruction BS is a muddy mess.

But I agree on how the media keeps screaming OBSTRUCTION and HINDERED when in fact Mueller testimony stated that his investigation was never obstructed or hindered. It is under oath in front of the world to see him say just that. :bop:

That is why IMHO it would be the best move for the Dem's to let this dog sleep until he is out of office. If they keep beating this to death until election time they will lose lots of people who don't affiliate with any party but vote. Because of the BS in the media coverage and the whole... they have had 2+ year to prove something and they haven't. Then the whole media BS "racist" they scream at anything he says or does. This Baltimore issue is stupid. He never once used race. He talked about rats, crime, deterioration of buildings and infrastructure, etc.

* Remember Baltimore got about $3.8 billion in funding to help with these things....and yet it got worse!!!]*

Now that isn't on Cummings because he got the funding to his city... it is the city officials who squandered it. But again shows you how quick the media and people are to call "racist" with out even blinking of a eye.

I have talked to some of my friends who are hard core democrats and asked them what they think of some of this "racist" BS. Like with the "squad", Baltimore, etc. They said it is a joke what they are saying. they said Trump is speaking the truth. Which made me almost fall over in my chair. But you see how it is hurting the Democratic base. Granted these people wont vote for Trump this next election cycle but people who are on the fence it will make them shift.

Edit: to show it was 3.8 billion not 1.8. :bop:


----------

