Mega-Thread: Mueller investigation

[cubby]

After strong threats, at the final hour, finally, Rosenstein capitulates and lets Gowdy and Nunes review the 2-page FBI memo that kicked off the Russia investigation.

Man, it sure takes a lot of work to get the FBI to cooperate.

This drag-their-feet style is exactly why Nunes scoffed at the request from the FBI to "just let us review the Nunes memo."

You realize that this isn't the FBI, right? This is the DOJ. The link you posted literally said that the DOJ (Rosenstein) released the memo. Why would you claim this is part of the FBI? It seems like you're being disingenuous when you link something and then make a claim/statement that is contrary to what the link states.

[Slybak]

Graham goes on FOX News, because that's literally the route to tell Trump not to fire Mueller.

If Mueller concludes his investigation there will be a report that lackeys like Graham can at least try to spin to their favor. If Trump fires Mueller before that then you have a President of the United States openly subverting the rule of law in broad daylight, leaving lackeys like Graham fewer options to cover for him.

- - - Updated - - -

Quoted in this article in which ABC News says the raid was looking for information about Cohen paying off Trump's mistresses.

There was also some reports that the FBI sought records relating to the Access Hollywood tape.

In case anyone forgot, Wikileaks delayed release of the stolen Podesta emails for at least a couple of days until approximately 30 minutes after Farenthold went to print with the Access Hollywood tape. Farenthold himself would have sought comment from the campaign prior to publishing the story, and if the FBI has credible evidence that someone from the campaign knew WikiLeaks had the emails and asked them to delay release until after the AH story (so reporters would distracted enough to maybe not find out things like campaign payoffs to Trump's sexual partners)... hooo boy that person's going to jail.

[Mormolyce]

I begrudgingly voted for him, but I never "supported" him.

Your smokescreen is less convincing than Nunes' lol.

- - - Updated - - -

So why is there much more evidence of the democrats colluding than a 2 year investigation which led to a porn star?

So like your President, you don't know what the word "collude" means, I see.

[Slybak]

Your smokescreen is less convincing than Nunes' lol.

Nunes actually did the nation and perhaps the world a great service. He all but single-handedly created a potentially irreconcilable rift between America's right wing political party and America's Federal law enforcement and intelligence gathering agencies. It helps to reverse the stubborn and perverse assumption that these agencies need to be staffed and led by some steely-jawed Republican Daddy Figure (Tenet, Woolsey, Clapper, Petraeus, Hayden, Muller, Comey, etc.). That's good. That's like being stranded in the woods with two rabid grizzly bears and, instead of having to run from them for fear of being eaten, watching them try to maul each other to death.

[Dontrike]

Define both sides? Lindsey Graham?

Republicans and Democrats. The only people that don't like Mueller are folks like you that worship Trump and the KFC crumbs he walks on.

- - - Updated - - -

So why is there much more evidence of the democrats colluding than a 2 year investigation which led to a porn star?

Where is this evidence? I'd certainly love to see it.

- - - Updated - - -

Not even close.

Nope that's exactly it. Trump's whole campaign ran on "I'm not Hillary", so how do you expect he win next presidency? He certainly can't say he actually improved anything, that's for sure, and Hillary is gone.

- - - Updated - - -

Sure thing man, just because you don't like the truth doesn't make it false. Trump is never getting impeached, Mueller is out to get Trump, and the only real evidence of Russian Collusion is probably sitting on Nunes desk right now.

Of course Mueller is out to get Trump, he's investigating him. That's exactly out to get him. Of course IF there is nothing then Trump gets away scott free, at least on collusion charges, and we finally know and this whole thing can end.

Problem is there is more evidence that he colluded than didn't, so the real question is what deluded folks like you will do if Trump is found guilty.

- - - Updated - - -

After strong threats, at the final hour, finally, Rosenstein capitulates and lets Gowdy and Nunes review the 2-page FBI memo that kicked off the Russia investigation.

Man, it sure takes a lot of work to get the FBI to cooperate.

This drag-their-feet style is exactly why Nunes scoffed at the request from the FBI to "just let us review the Nunes memo."

Couldn't be because Nunes is a partisan whack job that damn near ruined his career just months ago and is a proven shill for Trump. No, couldn't be that.

- - - Updated - - -

I love vague statement like this. Great counterpoint!

Coming from the person that hasn't given any great counterpoints, evidence, nor sanity this is pure irony.

[DarkTZeratul]

Problem is there is more evidence that he colluded than didn't, so the real question is what deluded folks like you will do if Trump is found guilty.

I'm gonna go with decrying the whole thing as a deep state conspiracy.

[Dontrike]

So collusion is the reason Trump won? You need to get some better sources. It was just an "insurance policy" strategy implemented by the democrats in the rare possibility Trump won the election. It was a game plan based on nothing.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Oh man, this is conspiracy theory central right here.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm sorry you can't handle reality. MSM is spoon feeding you this Impeachment thing which will not happen but it gets people like you excited.

Speaking of can't handle reality as she spews insanity and conspiracy theories. By the way, where's that evidence about Dems colluding? In fact where's any of the evidence you've ever said you'd give?

- - - Updated - - -

The redactions were "minimal and justified", firstly, but secondly it doesn't matter what the FBI thinks. He's the Chairman of the HIC. He's not even investigating Trump-Russia, they concluded that investigation. This is an investigation into the FBI.

Nothing like when "didn't vote for Trump" Trumplestiltskins think that the FBI is only out to get them thanks to the words of their stupid Annoying Orange god.

Seriously, do you not reread anything you put out here?

- - - Updated - - -

I begrudgingly voted for him, but I never "supported" him.

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

But I call foul when Trump does something bad (rescind on DACA) and praise him when he does something good (Tax Plan).

*deep breath* AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA *SNORT* HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH.

Oh wait....you're serious? AHAHAHAHAHAHA

You can't be that bad at self awareness to think you don't support him, call him out on anything, and that the tax plan is good. Hahahhaha....okay.

[Deja Thoris]

I begrudgingly voted for him, but I never "supported" him. I can tell you really haven't followed all of my voluminous posts about Trump and how I feel about him, and that's reasonable and fine. But I call foul when Trump does something bad (rescind on DACA) and praise him when he does something good (Tax Plan).

- - - Updated - - -



So it's okay to stymie the Chairman of the HIC? That's fine as long as the FBI is suspicious that he'll somehow use the 2-page FBI memo that started the Russian probe to help Trump? That's ridiculous.

If you vote for somebody you supported them. You literally put a tick in a box and said "I choose this guy".

It's fine that you lie to us. It's sad as fuck that you're lying to and deluding yourself.

Also, "volumous posts". I know you think you're some kind of intellectual heavy weight here but regurgitating whatever bullshit the quack of the day is peddling isn't really a "volumous post".

[Dontrike]

I'm gonna go with decrying the whole thing as a deep state conspiracy.

It may go even deeper. I've heard there's a Deeper State, where the real Government, or "G spot", is that Hillary has been fiddling with for some time. She's trying to finger her way as deep as she can go so the blue "wave" happens as she's satisfied with her true work.

[Mormolyce]

Also, "volumous posts". I know you think you're some kind of intellectual heavy weight here but regurgitating whatever bullshit the quack of the day is peddling isn't really a "volumous post".

Maybe he literally thinks it means "loud in volume".

[GennGreymane]

It may go even deeper. I've heard there's a Deeper State, where the real Government, or "G spot", is that Hillary has been fiddling with for some time. She's trying to finger her way as deep as she can go so the blue "wave" happens as she's satisfied with her true work.

but why thoooooooo

[Dontrike]

but why thoooooooo

Sometimes a lady just has to create a shadow government underneath a shadow government to feel real pleasure.

[GennGreymane]

Sometimes a lady just has to create a shadow government underneath a shadow government to feel real pleasure.

sttoooopppppppp

[Dacien]

If you vote for somebody you supported them. You literally put a tick in a box and said "I choose this guy".

It's fine that you lie to us. It's sad as fuck that you're lying to and deluding yourself.

Also, "volumous posts". I know you think you're some kind of intellectual heavy weight here but regurgitating whatever bullshit the quack of the day is peddling isn't really a "volumous post".

Voluminous means large in volume, i.e., I've written a lot. It has nothing to do with intellectualism.

[Stormspark]

Sometimes a lady just has to create a shadow government underneath a shadow government to feel real pleasure.

Oh god, that reminds me of this picture. It describes that perfectly.

[Machismo]

Voluminous means large in volume, i.e., I've written a lot. It has nothing to do with intellectualism.

Yes, you have written a lot, and a great deal of it was to constantly deflect and defend Trump... whilst deliberately ignoring things when they didn't fit the message you were trying to push. You are easily one of the most disingenuous posters on these threads. The only real question, is whether you are doing it on purpose, or if you are truly that brainwashed.

[Belize]

Voluminous means large in volume, i.e., I've written a lot. It has nothing to do with intellectualism.

At least you're aware that what you post is just a large amount of text, lacking any sort of critical thinking or intellect.

You get a gold star for self awareness.

[Antiganon]

I begrudgingly voted for him, but I never "supported" him. I can tell you really haven't followed all of my voluminous posts about Trump and how I feel about him, and that's reasonable and fine. But I call foul when Trump does something bad (rescind on DACA) and praise him when he does something good (Tax Plan).

Until I see a legit mea culpa, you are an avowed Trump supporter.

I believe @Endus had some tips for how a mea culpa should be done over in the Williamson thread.

[Dacien]

Until I see a legit mea culpa, you are an avowed Trump supporter.

I believe @Endus had some tips for how a mea culpa should be done over in the Williamson thread.

Mean culpa over what, exactly? Being doubtful of Trump-Russia? Criticizing Trump when he does something bad but encouraging the things he does that are good? What exactly is the apology supposed to be aimed at?

As for voting for him, I explained it this way: Trump was a gunman ready to shoot 5 people and Hillary was the gunman aiming at 6 people, and I get to vote which one to shoot. If I don't vote, a group gets picked at random.

So I vote for the 5 people, and the criticism pours forth about, "How could you support killing 5 people?"

And this whole idea that if you vote for a candidate you support everything they do, it's ridiculous. It would be ridiculous just the same if I approached an Obama supporter and said, "I can't believe you support drone striking American citizens!" It's just silly.

And listen, I think this Stormy Daniels situation has infinitely more legs than Trump-Russia; I'm not bending over backwards to defend Trump in that, because I don't think the facts support any defense. I think he slept with her, had a conversation with Cohen about it, and purposefully distanced himself from the payment. I don't think he was unaware of the payment at all.

What's right is right and what's wrong is wrong, I call them as I see them. And if I'm wrong, such as in the Williamson thread you mentioned or if Trump-Russia is revealed to have substance, I'll man up eat crow.

[NYC17]

Mean culpa over what, exactly? Being doubtful of Trump-Russia? Criticizing Trump when he does something bad but encouraging the things he does that are good? What exactly is the apology supposed to be aimed at?

As for voting for him, I explained it this way: Trump was a gunman ready to shoot 5 people and Hillary was the gunman aiming at 6 people, and I get to vote which one to shoot. If I don't vote, a group gets picked at random.

So I vote for the 5 people, and the criticism pours forth about, "How could you support killing 5 people?"

And this whole idea that if you vote for a candidate you support everything they do, it's ridiculous. It would be ridiculous just the same if I approached an Obama supporter and said, "I can't believe you support drone striking American citizens!" It's just silly.

And listen, I think this Stormy Daniels situation has infinitely more legs than Trump-Russia; I'm not bending over backwards to defend Trump in that, because I don't think the facts support any defense. I think he slept with her, had a conversation with Cohen about it, and purposefully distanced himself from the payment. I don't think he was unaware of the payment at all.

What's right is right and what's wrong is wrong, I call them as I see them. And if I'm wrong, such as in the Williamson thread you mentioned or if Trump-Russia is revealed to have substance, I'll man up eat crow.

Trump/Russia has plenty of substance. The criticism is that you bend over backwards to avoid it, or outright deny its existence. The mere utterance otherwise, and the fact that you believe it's some sort of defense of your absurdity, is in and of itself absurdity.

You used too many words to basically say you aren't capable of objective thought when it comes to that subject. Pointing to other instances of when you supposedly employed an objective analysis does nothing to support the idea that you're capable of it in this instance. You simply are not and your writings and penchant for attaching yourself to worthless arguments of others shows this fact.

It's beyond time for you to recognize basic things.