Jump to content
NurseBlaq NurseBlaq (New Member) New Member

Mueller Hearing

Politics   (2,855 Views 184 Comments)
2,547 Visitors; 182 Posts
If you find this topic helpful leave a comment.
advertisement

You are reading page 6 of Mueller Hearing. If you want to start from the beginning Go to First Page.

14 minutes ago, NurseBlaq said:

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....

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.

 

We know the definition of exonerate.  My point is that Mueller, as a prosecutor, doesn't have the legal power or responsibility to exonerate. So, it is meaningless for him to say "exonerate".  

I didn't see what you saw yesterday.  We each have our own impression.

Personally, I appreciated the grilling he got from some Republicans.  

Share this post


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

We know the definition of exonerate.  My point is that Mueller, as a prosecutor, doesn't have the legal power or responsibility to exonerate. So, it is meaningless for him to say "exonerate".  

I didn't see what you saw yesterday.  We each have our own impression.

Personally, I appreciated the grilling he got from some Republicans.  

Because he didn't say exonerate, Trump did. Mueller said exculpate.

The links to the actual videos are on the first page. Watch it again. It's not an impression if it was said out of their own mouth and the whole world saw it. You can't get an impression of words not spoken by claiming they said something they didn't actually say, hence me pointing out Trump said exonerate and Mueller said exculpate. I made a whole point of that in the post you quoted and you still went with the Mueller said exonerate bait and switch lie.

As for what you think about the Republicans "grilling" Mueller, OK.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours 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.

 

Trump is intentionally repeating a lie to his voting base understanding that an alarming percentage will simply believe it if they hear it ofren enough from people in elevated positions. While the president is not terribly intelligent, it is nothing more than an poor excuse to suggest that he simply doesn't understand the word.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, NurseBlaq said:

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....

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.

 

My lunch was missing from the break room cafeteria the other day.  I think you stole it.

i don’t have evidence you did.  But half our coworkers don’t like you, and I go around telling everyone I can’t say you didn’t do it.  Of course, that gives the ones who don’t like more reason to want you gone.

Thats what Mueller has done with his report.

Share this post


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

Russian interference . . . of course that happens and did happen.  I've heard this subject talked about since the beginning of this investigation and actually beforehand with Obama and Putin in 2016.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_interference_in_the_2016_United_States_elections

But did it get into the voting machine and magically change the way someone voted?  No. 

 

 

 

 

 

So, Russian interference in our elections, is only a problem if the Russians change votes?

Am I understanding your statement correctly?

And how, exactly would you know, if they did change votes?

Would they leave a note?

What would be telltale sign?

Share this post


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

Trump is intentionally repeating a lie to his voting base understanding that an alarming percentage will simply believe it if they hear it ofren enough from people in elevated positions. While the president is not terribly intelligent, it is nothing more than an poor excuse to suggest that he simply doesn't understand the word.

But it’s ok for the special prosecutor, someone who does understand the word, to misuse the term?

Edited by MoondoggieRN

Share this post


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

My lunch was missing from the break room cafeteria the other day.  I think you stole it.

i don’t have evidence you did.  But half our coworkers don’t like you, and I go around telling everyone I can’t say you didn’t do it.  Of course, that gives the ones who don’t like more reason to want you gone.

Thats what Mueller has done with his report.

You should read the report and that notion might be changed. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, MoondoggieRN said:

But it’s ok for the special prosecutor to misuse the term?

You haven't proved or provided evidence that he has misused the term. 

Share this post


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

Russian interference . . . of course that happens and did happen.  I've heard this subject talked about since the beginning of this investigation and actually beforehand with Obama and Putin in 2016.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_interference_in_the_2016_United_States_elections

But did it get into the voting machine and magically change the way someone voted?  No. 

 

 

 

 

 

So you didn't read the report of all the stolen data and targeted attacks and disinfo machines steering votes huh? At this point I don't know if you're seriously that far out of the loop or just want to be contrary and I'm not being facetious either.

Share this post


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

You should read the report and that notion might be changed. 

Again, why would you assume I haven’t?

Share this post


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

Again, why would you assume I haven’t?

Because your remarks, IMV don't reflect a broad understanding of the findings and report. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
×