Home | About | Donate

Rep. Ted Lieu's Recap During Mueller Testimony Makes Obstruction of Justice Case Against Trump

Originally published at http://www.commondreams.org/news/2019/07/24/rep-ted-lieus-recap-during-mueller-testimony-makes-obstruction-justice-case-against

‘Obstruction of Justice’ seems to be out of place considering it was only yesterday the Democrats were breaking their Zionist arms reaching for the AYE vote button …to keep on genociding the Palestinians or at least make it crime if you complained.


Mueller just qualified his comment to rep. Lieu, watering it down. Business as usual.

Could you charge the president after he left office?

Technically, by law, yes. But the president in 2021 will either be Trump again or a DNC-approved right-wing Democrat who will tell us–AGAIN–that in order for the country to heal, we have to move forward.

1 Like

Moving backward is the likely outcome.


Utterly absurd. “Can’t charge a sitting president.” And where is that written? NOWHERE.

So if Trump literally took a gun and shot 50 people dead, you “Can’t charge a sitting president”? Really? What an utter crock of shit, bullshit promoted by self-serving shitheads who only serve power in order to have a career near power.


Mueller also said his investigation wasn’t obstructed, so the most they could get him on is attempting to obstruct an investigation into something he didn’t do. Congress can impeach for anything though, it’s just a matter of what they think they can get away with politically.

There’s a long list of impeachable offenses Congress is ignoring, while they try and wring something out of Mueller.


We were assured repeatedly by the d-party cheerleaders who comment here that where there was smoke, there was fire. Mueller – formerly a political foe – was going to get to the bottom of…something or other. Well, you handed Trump one more weapon to bludgeon your hapless party with.

And with Pelosi handing him one sweetheart deal after another, he’s looking like a shoe in for re-election.


I just heard snatches on the radio from time to time while I was putting on a nice pot of lima beans this morning. I can’t imagine anyone staying awake for much more than 2 or 3 minutes of this. Perhaps tapes of the hearings could sell as briskly as that never-read report, only for use as a soporific. (The following is paraphrased):

Q: Does this report list several instances of blah dee blah?
A: Yes.
Q: And did you report that these instance may have led la la la la?
A: That’s what the report says, yes.
Q: And when the report says…

Aghhh! I never thought I’d feel sorry for poor Bob, but he must be carrying some seriously bad karma from several previous incarnations to deserve this. (I know he was a lousy FBI director, but the penalty for that need not be drawing and quartering.) I can’t even stand to listen!


Aaron Maté is live tweeting this:


Anybody else getting the impression that Mueller is a doting old fool who will do and say anything in order to protect that status quo? (And of course his own reputation)
This whole thing is starting to stink like yesterday’s sauerkraut. In the end it seems that all roads are going to lead back to the justice department, and it appears Barr has been promised thirty pieces of silver and a house in the Hamptons for his “janitorial work”
This is what fascism looks like.


Yep, do it for that reason.

That would send a message to Pence (cause whether Pence can control Bolton or not is an issue.)

1 Like

The “policy” against indicting a sitting president was based on a memorandum written in 1973 by the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel. You know, Tricky Dick was getting into hot water and needed protection. It was based on the stunningly conniving argument that an indicted President would be unable to do his job (“Duh!”); therefore, it’s bad for the country to indict the President. (Somehow, it’s not bad for the country to be led by a criminal?) Really, it boils down to nothing more that an argument as to whether or not the President is “above” the law. Most of us believe (or wish) not; the DOJ seems to think otherwise, as Barr and the application of this policy are making abundantly clear. Amazing how this policy, developed during one criminal President’s term, only gets trotted out when another President is an obvious criminal. Department of Justice, my ass.


That’s a mindblower.

Wonder if the Senate could get convinced the guy’s dangerous enough (to impeach) while the House is going through impeachment proceedings…for things like Yemen, or…“I could blow Afghanistan off the face of the Earth.” <- Monday 7/22

Again I’ll say if it doesn’t send a message to Pence regarding regime changing, what good will it do when he’s got to deal with Bolton? Pence has to have that message to invoke against the dude.


Two comments. Can we now put to bed the idea that the Russia connection was, and maybe still is, REAL? I have seen it as real since the beginning, with emphasis on the sanctions.

Secondly, Mueller says he didn’t pursue testimony from trump because it would have taken too much time to drag it through the courts. Sounds eerily similar to 2000 when the SCOTUS said they would not allow a full count because of time restrictions due to certification deadlines. Time is a bullshit reason in both cases. imo


What did we suspect with an all republican investigation?

If only, this nation of our was made up of "reasonable people."

1 Like

Mueller has been protecting the status quo, for, I don’t know.

He’s made a good life of it.

Some soldiers always do what they’re told.


Facing the truth hurts some.

1 Like

In fact, CNN just reported Pelosi’s reaction as “nothing new, nothing changed, she will continue business as usual” (paraphrased)

so, another waste of time side show. Pelosi will continue to protect the status quo