Jump to content
NurseBlaq NurseBlaq (New Member) New Member

Mueller Hearing

Politics   (2,857 Views 184 Comments)
2,547 Visitors; 182 Posts
If you find this topic helpful leave a comment.
advertisement

You are reading page 5 of Mueller Hearing. If you want to start from the beginning Go to First Page.

1 hour ago, MoondoggieRN said:

Trump is misusing the term, or lying if you prefer.  I’m not sure why a person you all think is a buffoon is lying if he is misusing a legal term?

Meanwhile, a special prosecutor and Democrat congress people, many who are lawyers and know better, and the media

are using the term to purposely damage the president.  No problem with that, right?

He didn’t have to try.  He could have just done it.  But didn’t.

Funny coming from the “Mueller doesn’t exonerate” crowd.

 

I am sorry, but you quoted my comments, and I simply can't make sense if your responses to my quotes.

Can you elaborate?

For example, why would you think a buffoon is incapable of lying?

And why does my pointing out that comments used on another thread, that echo, mimick, or parrot, those of Trump's personal lawyer, go back to Mueller?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Spidey's mom said:

Obviously these are excerpts but my point would be all sides had some critical things to say and weren't exactly thrilled with Mueller's testimony.  

Well, if both sides had something to complain about, it would seem Mueller did his job, didn't he?

If only one side was happy with his answers, something would be wrong.

Reminds of the saying, "A good charge nurse is disliked by all."

Personally, I thought Mueller did a fine job, testifying before some House members, Republicans, who were intent on attacking him, and his team, in order to give cover to a criminal.

I think someone posted on this thread, yesterday, a comment suggesting that Mueller's hesitancy with answers, indicated a lack of familiarity with the report he authored.

Hardly.

It was clear to those actually paying attention, that Mueller was serious, when he stated: "The report is my testimony."

He was trying very hard, to remain within the confines of the report.

I understand we are all used to a buffoon, opening his mouth, and saying the most vile things, with little thought, so listening to someone be very deliberate with their wording could be confusing!

The only person who seemed to have a bad day yesterday, was Trump and Congressional supporters.

History will not treat them kindly.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For those who care, the WaPo has a piece fact-checking false statements made by Congressional members yesterday, during Mueller's testimony.

Spoiler alert!!!!

The biggest LIE goes to Mike Johnson (R-LA), who said that Trump FULLY cooperated with investigation.

Wow. That's a doozy of a LIE.

Fact-Checking Lawmakers Claims During Mueller Hearing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Lil Nel said:

For example, why would you think a buffoon is incapable of lying?

In most cases, we wouldn’t expect a non legal person who is also a buffoon to use that term properly.  But, his haters are so that they can say he’s lying.

59 minutes ago, Lil Nel said:

And why does my pointing out that comments used on another thread, that echo, mimick, or parrot, those of Trump's personal lawyer, go back to Mueller?

If I say the earth is round, am I parroting or stating fact?

Dems and the liberal media are the experts at parroting narratives.

Edited by MoondoggieRN

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Lil Nel said:

It was clear to those actually paying attention, that Mueller was serious, when he stated: "The report is my testimony."

 He was trying very hard, to remain within the confines of the report.

It’s obvious he had little to do with composing the report.

i particularly liked when he said, “its in the report, so consequently its true.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, MoondoggieRN said:

In most cases, we wouldn’t expect a non legal person who is also a buffoon to use that term properly.  But, his haters are so that they can say he’s lying.

Dems and the liberal media are the experts at parroting.  

Sorry, but your last sentence, in the first paragraph, still makes no sense.

Perhaps some words are missing, or autocorrect jumped in.

With your last paragraph, please give some examples.

I gave you a clear example of parroting, and in return, you have me a personal opinion, with nothing to base that opinion on.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
advertisement

One thing I have learned in debating on a public BB like this is to be focused on facts over feelings, use evidence over ignorance, and science over myth.  This is my mantra over on Instagram actually.  

When I first started posting here on the non-nurse subjects . . . aka politics for the most part . . . I did it with my emotions/feelings.  

I went back to my debate class information from high school, took a fantastic statistics class that taught me to look at facts, and did research prior to opening my mouth.  I also consider the other side - one great debate tactic taught was the instructor would give us a subject, ask what we personally thought about it, then he would make us debate the opposite of our viewpoint.  He gave me the assignment to debate the abortion question as a pro-life person as I'd identified myself as pro-choice.  (Hey, it was the 70's).  This is a good learning tool. 

My point is we ALL should consider, just for a moment, confirmation bias (the tendency to interpret new evidence as confirmation of one's existing beliefs or theories).  Dunning-Kruger Effect is also at play. ZDoggMD did a great video about that recently.  We all fall prey to it. 

What I saw while Mueller was testifying is different than what "some" others saw.  I saw a man who was not well-spoken, who didn't seem to know very much about his own report, and who stumbled many times.  I felt bad for him really. 

The Republicans who questioned him asked him questions I had about this issue. 

And the truth about the term "exonerate" is Trump did misuse that term because prosecutors accuse, not exonerate.   Mueller has/had no power to exonerate and in my reading from legal websites, I found this sentence:

Mueller said "this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime; it also does not exonerate him".  If Mueller were a first-year law student in criminal procedure he would receive a "D". Prosecutors accuse.  Only a trial by a jury of one's peers "concludes" someone has committed a crime.  Nor do prosecutors have the power to exonerate.  Everyone in America, including a sitting president, is presumed innocent until convicted in a court of law".  Maybe Mueller misused the term as well. I'll talk to some friends who are lawyers to get more info but the legal definition that I found is below:

In general, an exoneration occurs when a person who has been convicted of a crime is officially cleared based on new evidence of innocence.

https://www.law.umich.edu/special/exoneration/Pages/glossary.aspx

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While Trump supporters continue to critique Mueller's performance yesterday, they remain silent on something that should trouble all.

And that is Russian interference in our elections.

I have brought up that point, at least twice.

Maybe the silence is because their leader, jokes, about such interference.

Who knows?

But while debating the meaning of the word exonerate, and Mueller's credentials as a lawyer, the Trumpsters remain silent on a very big, looming and problem: The Russians.

Trump appears to have no plan, other than laughter and jokes to deal with a serious problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Lil Nel said:

But while debating the meaning of the word exonerate, and Mueller's credentials as a lawyer, the Trumpsters remain silent on a very big, looming and problem: The Russians.

The only reason these debates are happening is because Dems keep trying to keep the collusion/obstruction narrative going.

How much time did the Liberal Lady Bookworms of Lexington spend discussing Russian interference?

Whise questioning Mueller’s legal credentials?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, MoondoggieRN said:

The only reason these debates are happening is because Dems keep trying to keep the collusion/obstruction narrative going.

How much time did the Liberal Lady Bookworms of Lexington spend discussing Russian interference?

Whise questioning Mueller’s legal credentials?

Actually, we didn't spend any time discussing Mueller's testimony, but thank you for asking.

We did touch on Russian interference.

We discussed the book we read, Text Me When You Get Home, it is about female friendship.

We ate dinner and drank wine, at an outdoor restaurant, that is part of a nursery.

We talked about our personal lives.

We discussed the recent NY Times piece, that shows Trump could win in 2020, by losing even more of the popular vote than in 2016 because of weight given to certain states, via the Electoral College.

You see, our opinion of Trump, has nothing to do with the Mueller Report.

And we already took seriously, the issue of Russian interference.

Btw- I am happy to identify as a "Bookworm," as you described my book club.

Smart people read. Doesn't Trump brag about never reading?

Rex Tillerson, said, Trump never read briefings.

I believe him!

Edited by Lil Nel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was literally quoting main points from interactions yesterday and somehow people still manage to think Trump did nothing wrong. How?

Mueller isn't some frail, incompetent man, he's self controlled. He took the time to think before he spoke and limited himself so as to not go too far outside the lines of what he wrote in his report. He said that from the beginning of the hearing, during his press conference, during pretty much every statement he's made since the report.

I saw GOP continuously ask him questions about ongoing investigations trying to undermine them or publicly expose the inner workings, ask him about things outside the scope of his investigation, etc. The crazy part is because he wouldn't answer those ridiculous, repetitive questions and tantrums, people claim he was incompetent or didn't know what was in his report. Really? If I tell you I gave someone Tylenol and their pain is now 2/10, don't ask me if Morphine helps their pain when it wasn't given nor ordered and is irrelevant to the report I'm giving you. That's what is happening here.

And there are several meanings of the term exonerate. No matter how it's spun, Trump doesn't understand the definition of it and we know this based upon the context of which he used it,  full stop. There are different definitions legally and laymen's terms. Trump was speaking in laymen's terms and so were the media. But even if legally, he still used it out of context and still wasn't cleared of wrongdoing.

legal https://definitions.uslegal.com/e/exoneration/

laymen's https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/exonerate

So now that's out the way, let's get to the exculpated word. Mueller said Trump was "NOT exculpated", ie NOT innocent of wrongdoing

laymen's https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/exculpate

legal https://definitions.uslegal.com/e/exculpatory/

So let's look at the legal term of what Mueller ACTUALLY said: exculpate....

Quote

Exculpatory describes evidence which tends to justify or exonerate an accused person's actions and tends to show that they had a lack of criminal intent. It is the opposite of inculpatory evidence, which tends to incriminate or prove guilt. The government has a limited duty under the Due Process Clause to disclose exculpatory information to a criminal defendant. However, that duty arises only when disclosure is necessary to ensure a fair trial.

So exonerate is included in the definition of exculpate and based upon the definition, Trump was, in fact, NOT cleared and if he was NOT EXCULPATED that means there was no lack of criminal intent as shown by his actions. Can we also take the time to now note that Trump, out of his own mouth, said he would use help from foreign countries in elections and invited help again for 2020? Looks like somebody explained exculpate to Trump and he remixed it into his latest lie of being exonerated, but had a Freudian slip and acknowledged he was NOT exonerated. He spoke the truth, albeit accidentally, and people still don't accept it. How that work?

And lastly, just because someone doesn't subscribe to the Trump brigade it does not mean they're automatically a Dem. Many of us don't subscribe to any party and recognize there's potential fault in every politician no matter their affiliation. Stop that.

 

Edited by NurseBlaq

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
×