Listening on my way to work. Why need testimony to confirm statements in the report? Seems like D strategy is to try to insert their speculation and Miller seemed to not take the bait. Seems like R strategy is to dig further and Muller seems to be resisting. Overall, I think Muller is more at risk for tripping up than anything. I’m actually quite impressed at his responses to questions from both sides.

Overall, complete waste of time.

DNC strategy will be to pick on 1 phrase he says and run that story on the fake news for weeks.

The part that I saw was that he stated collusion and conspiracy are 2 different things.   But then called out that on page X, it says they are the same.  Then he says "go by the report". 

My TDS suffering coworker is watching it on her computer.  I want to add salt to the wound.

Dems are trying to get him to say the only reason Trump wasn't charged was the DOJ policy against charging a sitting president, and that the obstruction "evidence" he included in Vol 2 was enough to charge obstruction.

Without that, they've got nothing.

Republicans are beating him up over spending 2 years and $35M to investigate the Russian interference but stopped short of investigating any Russian involvement not potentially linked to the Trump campaign.  US citizens went to prison based on the investigation, but not one was charged with anything remotely related to Russian interference, collusion, conspiracy, or anything else.

The guy who started the entire dossier rumor which was the FBI used to start the investigation lied 3 times to the FBI as was stated in the Mueller report.  Yet, he was never charged with a crime, unlike Trump team members who went to prison for the exact same charges.  Mueller couldn't even remember that initial guy was named in the report until the (R) Senator Jim Jordon told him what page it was on.

Mueller is defending his work.  He's not answering questions.  He's said "I can't get into that" as a default position repeatedly even if the information is already in his report.  This hearing is a joke.

there goes that buzz word "exoneration"
That is not the duty of the special counsel nor in a court.
In court there is guilty or not guilty. There is no innocent conclusion.

Hearing is a win for Trump and improves his chances for reelection a little.  Now he just has to learn when to shut up so he can win.

He needs a minder that follows him around and gives advice on if he should say or tweet things.  Put a shocking dog collar on Trump.  If Trump says something like

Trump "Think I'll tweet about kicking Omar out of the country"
Minder " that's not a good idea"
Trump "I'll do it anyways....". Bbzzzzzzttttt.

Hearing is a win for Trump and improves his chances for reelection a little.  Now he just has to learn when to shut up so he can win.

He needs a minder that follows him around and gives advice on if he should say or tweet things.  Put a shocking dog collar on Trump.  If Trump says something like

Trump "Think I'll tweet about kicking Omar out of the country"
Minder " that's not a good idea"
Trump "I'll do it anyways....". Bbzzzzzzttttt.

You're missing it.  That unfiltered statements is what people want to hear.  Many are tired of PC sugar coated answers or statements.  And remember, he never named who should leave the country.  The 4 moron took it upon themselves to out themselves that they're the ones that hate the nation that he's talking about.  Strategic plan if you ask me.  Got them to out themselves.

Example how he handled N. Korea.  "I got a bigger button and it works".  Months later, peace talks.  A year later, he strolls into N. Korea showing of his imaginary ball (meme).

KJU: wanna hold my imaginary ball? Its super cool.

Trump: yeah, youre right. Its super cool.

KJU: i want my ball back.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

You're missing it.  That unfiltered statements is what people want to hear.

Don't need votes from Trump supporters.  We need votes from the undecided and those in the middle who will decide the election.  Those people don't like the unfiltered messages.  Trump barely won the last time because a lot of people didn't vote or were strongly against Hillary.  That may not happen again.

Don't need votes from Trump supporters.  We need votes from the undecided and those in the middle who will decide the election.  Those people don't like the unfiltered messages.  Trump barely won the last time because a lot of people didn't vote or were strongly against Hillary.  That may not happen again.

I think he's more focused on the electoral votes.  Hope his results will sway those undecided for popular vote and the recent removal of illegal voters.  IIRC, 1 county in CA removed about 10,000 illegal voters who were registered to vote recently.  But I do think it's a losing battle because the DNC controls the media.  So he needs to keep up the strong counter attacks to maintain that strong, don't take crap from nobody persona.

My father only has access to the fake news and had no idea of the good things he has done.  But he's so brain washed by them, after laying it down, his response is "Trumps racist" or "Trumps in bed with Putin".

I would assume if he toned it down and changed his attitude, he might lose some of his base because it will look like "he's playing ball".

Don't need votes from Trump supporters.  We need votes from the undecided and those in the middle who will decide the election.  Those people don't like the unfiltered messages.  Trump barely won the last time because a lot of people didn't vote or were strongly against Hillary.  That may not happen again.

I think if the Dems put up another Hillary-level nominee in terms of personality or poor campaigning, the lack of Dem-voter-turnout will effectively be votes for Trump.  After 4 years of "Orange Man Bad", there's not much hope that platform will energize anyone.

Can't wait to see what "October surprises" the two parties spring on us over a year from now! 

Then there's the Dem's tactic of "We hate you!  Vote for us!!" that pushed so many away from the party (and Hillary) in 2016:

I have listened to most of the first hearing and here is the takeaway I have so far.

Both the dems and republicans are grandstanding a lot here. A lot of "questions" for Mueller they already know the answer to or are not really questions.
The democrats keep trying to get Mueller to say something they can use against the president.
The republicans are ranting about the investigation sometimes with no appreciation for the difficulty and nature of what Mueller was assigned to do. A couple we unnecessarily rude.

There were a few questions by republicans that did show issues with Mueller's report and investigation. One was about why the initial guy who reported falsely of a Russia-Trump partnership and why he wasn't prosecuted for lying to the FBI. There were a couple others about why this or that wasn't done. Now there may be perfectly good answers to some or all of those questions but Mueller didn't do much to address those. Some of the questions Mueller just declined to get into however certain question he stated that others within the FBI are investigating related aspect and directed them to those investigators.

As for Mueller, it wasn't his best showing. He appears to possibly be having a hearing problem. That combined with the quickly said run on questions made him seem to be lost at some points. He also spoke in a sort of old man voice which doesn't mean anything but for sure will be used against him. I will say that he still appeared to have his wits though. He was careful and deliberate in most of the things he said. He had to retract one statement afterwards which may be due to him not having caught the whole question originally. Overall I found him to be trustworthy. He didn't try to sink Trump and he didn't try to defend Trump despite having the power give the democrats or the republicans something big.

I will sympathize with the difficult job he was faced with though. The questioners had their questions preplanned and Mueller had to ask page numbers and sections so he could reference them while answering. And given the importance, the cope, and the size of the investigation he had to do it is hard to do it without someone finding some valid criticism. Just talking to the committee like he did is tough.

There was a bit of criticism over why Mueller would even make a statement about exoneration though in this specific circumstances I agree with Mueller's publicly doing so. There was some critique over why Mueller didn't present a yes or no finding which was odd because not all investigations are going to be a clear yes or no. They re-touched on the issue of the legal counsel guidelines that a sitting president cannot be indicted which has been covered already.

Bottom line we really didn't get much out of what I heard except for a few fair criticisms of Mueller's investigation.

Don't need votes from Trump supporters.  We need votes from the undecided and those in the middle who will decide the election.  Those people don't like the unfiltered messages.  Trump barely won the last time because a lot of people didn't vote or were strongly against Hillary.  That may not happen again.

Indeed. If Hillary and the DNC hadn't treated Bernie so bad they likely would have had enough of his supporters for for her to beat Trump. In some ways Trump got lucky there, he won because democrat infighting.

there goes that buzz word "exoneration"
That is not the duty of the special counsel nor in a court.
In court there is guilty or not guilty. There is no innocent conclusion.

There are times where an investigation can lead to an actual exoneration.

Say someone accused you of stealing their car at a certain time and location. Police investigate and find solid proof that you were somewhere else at that date and time. That would be an example of when someone could be deemed innocent and exonerated.

In this case it is practically impossible to fully exonerate Trump of the accusation due to the nature and scope of the alleged crime.

There are times where an investigation can lead to an actual exoneration.

Say someone accused you of stealing their car at a certain time and location. Police investigate and find solid proof that you were somewhere else at that date and time. That would be an example of when someone could be deemed innocent and exonerated.

In this case it is practically impossible to fully exonerate Trump of the accusation due to the nature and scope of the alleged crime.

Wrong.  There's a reason why courts only return verdicts of Guilty and Not Guilty.

They don't say "Innocent" or "Exonerated".  In fact, it's an age old smear tactic used by loser prosecutors when speaking to the press after losing.  "Not guilty" isn't the same as "Innocent."

As was highlighted in the hearing, you'll never find one single investigation that declares someone "exonerated".  It doesn't exist.

You can be ruled out as a suspect, but that doesn't PROVE INNOCENCE BEYOND A SHADOW OF A DOUBT.  In your hypothetical, people have been in two place at once, as has happened in the case of twins.  Someone identifies the twin as the thief, but you (the one arrested) actually did it.  You then use your twin's alibi, like video of him in another place, as evidence.

So, yeah, exonerating is not part of the judicial system, including investigations.  You're either charged, or you're not.  Suspects are quick to claim exoneration, but that's not accurate, even for Trump.

Mueller was wrong to ever make the statements about obstruction.  That's like the police and DA posting your investigation file online for all to see, even though you were never charged.  Just the dirt found in the investigation is enough to cast doubt on your character for most.  And you never had a chance to defend against the accusations on court.  Not a fair way to run a justice system.

Nolte's take... pretty damn funny.

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/07/25/nolte-robert-mueller-isnt-senile-he-was-a-dirty-cop-forced-to-take-the-witness-stand/

Robert Mueller Isn’t Senile; He Was a Dirty Cop Forced to Take the Witness Stand

They told us Robert Mueller was Captain America: Crusader for Truth, and instead we got George Costanza and all the inept deception, sweaty stalling, and blundering dishonesty that comes with him.
Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s bumbling, stumbling, grumbling, tumbling, crumbling testimony Wednesday before the U.S House of Representatives was not only karma on steroids, it once again proved just how  brilliant the American Constitution is.

You see, the sublime spectacle of watching Robert Mueller’s reputation go up in flames, flames ignited by his own corrupt report and fueled by three years of the establishment media’s hoax machinery, would not have been possible without the Separation of Powers, without the ability of one branch of government to hold the other in check,

Did you see what happened yesterday… Captain America is a partisan monster, a Resistance Vengeance Machine whose precious purview included nothing that matters — Christopher Steele: Not in my purview, bro. The FISA warrants to spy on a sitting president: Not on my purview, bro. Russia’s role in the Steele Dossier: You are totally harshing my purview, bro. Hillary Clinton and the DNC’s role in the Steele dossier: Why are you all up in my purview, bro?  The Obama administration’s unprecedented unmasking of Trump officials: Purview, bro. The FBI spying on a presidential campaign: Watch me purview, bro. James Comey’s leaks: I hardly know the man. Fusion GPS: What is this Fusion GPS you speak of?

Oh, but what is in Walter Mitty’s purview?

Paul Manafort’s taxes.

[Etc.]

What I want to see more of is getting into the questions about validity of evidence and how/why this went so far based on a lie. Like the War of 5 Kong’s wouldn’t have been started if they knew Rhaegar didn’t tape Lyanna 

The problem with the investigation is it started off wrong.  Seems their starting point was Trump is certainly guilty and we have to find the evidence.  Instead of investigating Russian collusion with Trump as a possible suspect and working up the case to find out the truth.

They had a hard time finding evidence of Trump's guilt and when they couldn't find it, they kept digging for it and it's why the case took so long. At some point they must've realized that they weren't going to find anything but didn't want to be wrong, felt the pressure, and needed to justify all the time and money spent on the case so they kept digging hoping for a miracle.

There are times where an investigation can lead to an actual exoneration.

Say someone accused you of stealing their car at a certain time and location. Police investigate and find solid proof that you were somewhere else at that date and time. That would be an example of when someone could be deemed innocent and exonerated.

In this case it is practically impossible to fully exonerate Trump of the accusation due to the nature and scope of the alleged crime.

A senator did bring that up to Mueller.  In all his years of investigating, he has never mentioned exoneration in any of his reports. So why now?  Another senator brought a few thick books with him about the judicial system, law, and constitution and no where does it say a special consul has the power to exonerate anyone.

HPD's job isn't to prove innocents or guilt.  It's to gather evidence.  And in some cases, they even detain you while they collect said evidence.  Regarding your example, would HPD ever make a statement  that the X is innocent or exonerated?  Or will HPD just say "there's no evidence that supports X stole the car".

Wrong.  There's a reason why courts only return verdicts of Guilty and Not Guilty.

They don't say "Innocent" or "Exonerated".  In fact, it's an age old smear tactic used by loser prosecutors when speaking to the press after losing.  "Not guilty" isn't the same as "Innocent."

As was highlighted in the hearing, you'll never find one single investigation that declares someone "exonerated".  It doesn't exist.

You can be ruled out as a suspect, but that doesn't PROVE INNOCENCE BEYOND A SHADOW OF A DOUBT.  In your hypothetical, people have been in two place at once, as has happened in the case of twins.  Someone identifies the twin as the thief, but you (the one arrested) actually did it.  You then use your twin's alibi, like video of him in another place, as evidence.

So, yeah, exonerating is not part of the judicial system, including investigations.  You're either charged, or you're not.  Suspects are quick to claim exoneration, but that's not accurate, even for Trump.

Mueller was wrong to ever make the statements about obstruction.  That's like the police and DA posting your investigation file online for all to see, even though you were never charged.  Just the dirt found in the investigation is enough to cast doubt on your character for most.  And you never had a chance to defend against the accusations on court.  Not a fair way to run a justice system.

Notice that in my comment I said a police investigation could find you innocent, I didn't mention a jury.

Yes it is not of the same legal status as a juries decision but it is possible the an investigation could be said to prove someone innocent under certain situations.

Normally I would agree about Mueller's statements but this isn't just anyone, this is the president who sits beyond the reach of the federal justice system. It is a unique situation with a unique dynamic. To say its not fair because Trump was never charged is misleading because Mueller didn't have the ability to charge Trump. He was between a rock and a hard place and I think he did the best thing he could. Present the findings and let congress do their thing and voters do their thing.