-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Mueller's press conference increased public support for impeachment, despite him not stating any new information. This will likely do the same, because mother fuckers. do not. read.
Consider the handful of soundbites collected in this thread, and consider that millions will be exposed to them for the first time because this hearing was public.
He is looking for a soundbite. If he is successful they will turn a mole into a mountain. If its not, they will still do it
I think the distinction is "Can you charge the President with a crime after he left office" versus "Would you charge the President with a crime after he left office". I think Mueller was answering the former, but the soundbite is probably effective regardless.
Not to be an ass but this hearing is not aimed at you. It's aimed at people who DIDN'T read the report.
"Could be charged" in this context means Mueller believes that the information laid out in the report is a legitimate basis for an indictment.
I think Mueller took the question as the former (Can you charge a President), but the tone of the questioner and the repeat of the question made it seem like he was asking the latter (Could you charge this President).
LMAO the one question Jim Jordan tried to get in for a couple seconds was answered with "not talking about that."
The point is to get on camera and look cool. Not to get answers. That's why one gets job in congress, basically. Everyone wants to be the prosecutor.
Respectfully Rep. Reschenthaler, you don't have nearly the experience that Robert Mueller does, and the fact that you yielded time to Jim Jordan speaks volumes.
We ALL have an agenda here, but I don't believe yours is in line with American ideals.
We ALL have an agenda here, but I don't believe yours is in line with American ideals.
User warned: inappropriate commentary
Definitely off topic, but damn, where's Val Demings from? She's fine!
These people talking down to Mueller as if his credentials are hilarious. It's like listening to someone tell Gandalf how to use magic, or tell Bob Ross he doesn't know shit about trees.
Oh boy, I think Mueller's facade might be cracking in favour of the Dems a bit. The GOP might have gone a little hard here.
That would be okay if it was only the Democrats creating soundbites. But Republicans are creating soundbites as well. The hearing (similar to debates) has little to do with content but rather who creates the best soundbites.
I do think the Democrats are doing a little better creating a cohesive story now compared to earlier this morning. But I don't see the needle being swayed at the moment towards impeachment.
"I'm a law guy you see. I know the law back and forth and you did my prez dirty under law that doesn't exist anymore you should leave the country."
I don't know man. "You believe you could charge the President of the United States after leaving office?" This question isn't about a President, it's not about the Office of President. It's about THE President. All the question leading up to this one, they were referring to THE President. Not past or future, the current President.