(07-24-2019, 09:51 AM)Adam2012 Wrote:

(07-24-2019, 09:38 AM)B2hibry Wrote: Meuller testimony going just how I thought...

Sharp as a tack when questioned by someone with a 'D' next to their name. Altzheimers and hearing deficiencies kick in if there is an 'R' next to member.

Defend and deflect - we'd expect nothing less from you. I don't blame you for being embarrassed by his findings. But if it's the right guy, and the right party, you'll pretty much go along with anything. Nothing like being bought.

You ought to read the report. Or perhaps that's too hard and you're waiting for the movie?

Be glad he's just sticking to the report.

(Whiny post from Stroud defending Donald in three ... two ... one ...)

You should check to see who originally started this thread and who actually posted the report at post #28.

Vol. I versus Vol. II is night and day. II was nothing but overextended opinion and ifs. Far outside law and prosecutor standard.

Love projectionism! Never stop.

---

(07-24-2019, 09:52 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote:

(07-24-2019, 09:38 AM)B2hibry Wrote: Meuller testimony going just how I thought...

Sharp as a tack when questioned by someone with a 'D' next to their name. Altzheimers and hearing deficiencies kick in if there is an 'R' next to member.

From what I heard I thought he sounded pretty weak answering their questions too. The R who was talking about the Assumption of Innocence Principle did a good job, but the first guy (Kyle?) was talking too damn fast.

He seems to be willing to quickly say "correct" for one party and "can you repeat" for the other. Delays the 5-minutes for sure. However, there does appear to be a speed issue. There also seems to be a huge contradiction into what he can further dicuss or can't or what he wants to further discuss.

---