DOJ Initial Russia Hearings

Danny Bateman said:
Even if the endgame is just Mueller repeating what is in the Mueller report, that would be a very good thing. It's going to draw a TON of news coverage and you know only a very small sliver of people actually know what's in the report. A large chunk probably just buy Trump's lies about it wholesale.

The more people that come to understand what Mueller's investigation actually found the better. Even if he doesn't give us any new information.
Click to expand...
Lots of people who are too lazy to read the book will go see the movie.  

I don't think this is a bad thing, but I agree, it won't uncover anything new.  It will, however be unavoidable as it will be on wall to wall and our big orange dummy knows how tv coverage can give soundbites and repetition and that nobody in the US right now is consuming things much of any other way.  Especially his base.

 
this thread seems to be the best place for this

D-LPsZXWkAAD4ND.jpg


 
The interview was contentious at first, the sources added, but investigators ultimately found Steele’s testimony credible and even surprising. The takeaway has irked some U.S. officials interviewed as part of the probe — they argue that it shouldn’t have taken a foreign national to convince the inspector general that the FBI acted properly in 2016. Steele’s American lawyer was present for the conversation.
Click to expand...

 
Last edited by a moderator:
ZRod said:
Did you read the headline or the actual article?

I'm getting really sick of these shock value healines and Twitter quotes. They're misleading half truths at best...
Click to expand...
What is the problem?  The article interviews several Reps and Sens that haven’t read the report or have only read it partially.  Why is it fake or shocking?

 
funhusker said:
What is the problem?  The article interviews several Reps and Sens that haven’t read the report or have only read it partially.  Why is it fake or shocking?
Click to expand...
The first quote in the tweet seems like an incomplete quote. The second she goes on to explain that she has a lot of other material to read as well. I understand that. I read the first part of the report the night it came out, but never really got around to the second. I just read the bits and pieces from what the media posted and talked about. I just don't appreciate the journalism tactics that are being used I guesd

That said reading the report should have been top priority for all our law makers.

 
ZRod said:
The first quote in the tweet seems like an incomplete quote. The second she goes on to explain that she has a lot of other material to read as well. I understand that. I read the first part of the report the night it came out, but never really got around to the second. I just read the bits and pieces from what the media posted and talked about. I just don't appreciate the journalism tactics that are being used I guesd

That said reading the report should have been top priority for all our law makers.
Click to expand...
If part of your job was over site on the most powerful man in the world and a report was put out that the tax payers spent millions to produce and that report is needed to formulate what should be your opinion of future action against him.....it’s pathetic that you just think you’re too busy to read it. 

Totally unacceptable. 

 
BigRedBuster said:
If part of your job was over site on the most powerful man in the world and a report was put out that the tax payers spent millions to produce and that report is needed to formulate what should be your opinion of future action against him.....it’s pathetic that you just think you’re too busy to read it. 

Totally unacceptable. 
Click to expand...
No doubt. It should have been top priority. I'm just struggling with the selective quotes. In a time where we are saying words matter more than ever, you would think people would make damn sure that their words matter. If I can find an issue with it you know a Trump homer can too, and they will use it to completely delegitimize it.

 
With all of the crazy day-to-day BS, can we just step back...

"If we had had confidence the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so," Mueller said. "Charging the president with a crime was... not an option we could consider."
Click to expand...


And even apart from this, Individual 1 is an unindicted co-conspirator.

We have a straight-up criminal in the White House. And the only reason he is there is because of a BS policy (NOT LAW) about not charging a sitting President. 

 
QMany said:
With all of the crazy day-to-day BS, can we just step back...

And even apart from this, Individual 1 is an unindicted co-conspirator.

We have a straight-up criminal in the White House. And the only reason he is there is because of a BS policy (NOT LAW) about not charging a sitting President. 
Click to expand...
So lets say Trump shoots someone in Times Square - can we charge him or do we have to remove him by impeachment first???  That situation is why I think that policy is BS.  If the guy does wrong while in office or prior he should not be above the law.   

 
Back
Top