Mega-Thread: Mueller investigation

[Monte Baldo]

Funny how sources mentioned in the article are all invalid too

[Lenonis]

Funny how sources mentioned in the article are all invalid too

Not sure if you ready the article but it's full of "ifs" and "maybe" and "possibly" and even if true doesn't lay out a solid conclusion that Mueller would be in conflict and, at worst, more investigation would be needed.

I mean, sure, these things are serious and need to be looked into, but, Mr. newest forum alt account, your obvious attempt here is not in any way a good faith effort. Because, as you like to point out, posting history is easy to find. You have an agenda here and that makes you more in conflict that mueller ever could be.

[Monte Baldo]

Not sure if you ready the article but it's full of "ifs" and "maybe" and "possibly" and even if true doesn't lay out a solid conclusion that Mueller would be in conflict and, at worst, more investigation would be needed.

I mean, sure, these things are serious and need to be looked into, but, Mr. newest forum alt account, your obvious attempt here is not in any way a good faith effort. Because, as you like to point out, posting history is easy to find. You have an agenda here and that makes you more in conflict that mueller ever could be.

Haha, the usual things when people post something they don't agree with: alt, agenda, good faith. But hey, your paranoia makes everybody an enemy, everything they say is not true when it doesn't follow your world view.

[Lenonis]

Haha, the usual things when people post something they don't agree with: alt, agenda, good faith. But hey, your paranoia makes everybody an enemy, everything they say is not true when it doesn't follow your world view.

interesting that's only half of my post. You completely ignored the other half given it's rather inconvenient to your agenda.

[Felya]

Funny how sources mentioned in the article are all invalid too

Those sources do not claim the same opinion as the author.

- - - Updated - - -

Haha, the usual things when people post something they don't agree with: alt, agenda, good faith. But hey, your paranoia makes everybody an enemy, everything they say is not true when it doesn't follow your world view.

Can you link where in any of the articles linked there, the assertion is made that Muller has conflict of interest?

[cubby]

Funny how sources mentioned in the article are all invalid too

If only you'd read the article, you'd know you are a liar. Instead, you're just ignorant. Do you care?

[Monte Baldo]

interesting that's only half of my post. You completely ignored the other half given it's rather inconvenient to your agenda.

Why would I repeat the part where I agree with you? Agreeing with you that more investigation is needed is inconvenient for my "agenda"?

- - - Updated - - -

If only you'd read the article, you'd know you are a liar. Instead, you're just ignorant. Do you care?

Just proved my point, directly the name calling. Seems you didn't even read the article and all links in it.

[Bodakane]

Why would I repeat the part where I agree with you? Agreeing with you that more investigation is needed is inconvenient for my "agenda"?

So then this all comes down to you just bitching that people aren't taking an opinion piece as factual?

Cool.

[Lenonis]

Why would I repeat the part where I agree with you? Agreeing with you that more investigation is needed is inconvenient for my "agenda"?

Now we're up to about 3/4ths of my post. Still haven't admitted that the article doesn't claim there is any wrongdoing by Mueller.

[Monte Baldo]

Now we're up to about 3/4ths of my post. Still haven't admitted that the article doesn't claim there is any wrongdoing by Mueller.

And where did I say that? The problem is that anything used for discussion not being in your worldview is directly obsolete because of reasons...

[Lenonis]

And where did I say that? The problem is that anything used for discussion not being in your worldview is directly obsolete because of reasons...

Alternatively, I provided an objective analysis where I noticed all of the conditional language used in the article, noted that even if true the article does not conclude wrongdoing, and acknowledges that more investigation would likely need to be done to come to a conclusion.

If that is "directly obsolete" then....great?

Can we please stop pretending we both don't know why you posted that article?

[Monte Baldo]

Alternatively, I provided an objective analysis where I noticed all of the conditional language used in the article, noted that even if true the article does not conclude wrongdoing, and acknowledges that more investigation would likely need to be done to come to a conclusion.

If that is "directly obsolete" then....great?

Can we please stop pretending we both don't know why you posted that article?

Ah, so this has come to ASSUMPTIONS now. Paranoia indeed, always seeing only the bad in people. Starting discussions, showing multiple sides is not wanted here it seems. Same with -Edge in another thread...

[Lenonis]

Ah, so this has come to ASSUMPTIONS now.

Paranoia indeed, always seeing only the bad in people.

Welp that does it for me today. Someone else will have to pick up the good fight. Can only handle so much cognitive dissonance in one day.

[Monte Baldo]

Welp that does it for me today. Someone else will have to pick up the good fight. Can only handle so much cognitive dissonance in one day.

You reading things that are not there, you assuming things about other people without any reason, you with that signature and then talking about "cognitive dissonance". At least I am consistent in calling you out for your paranoia...

[cubby]

Just proved my point, directly the name calling. Seems you didn't even read the article and all links in it.

So you understand that opinions are not facts. And the article you linked didn't agree with the opinion piece?

And just a heads up - calling someone what they are isn't name calling - it's telling the truth. You little snowflake Trumpsters need to start understanding that.

[Monte Baldo]

So you understand that opinions are not facts. And the article you linked didn't agree with the opinion piece?

And just a heads up - calling someone what they are isn't name calling - it's telling the truth. You little snowflake Trumpsters need to start understanding that.

You make yourself not more credible by all the name calling, especially "Trumpsters". So please tell me where I was mentioning FACTS? As I already said, I posted it to start a discussion. But your bias (as shown in everything you have said to me up to now), can't accept anything that goes against your worldview. So sad. Stay in your little bubble, it's cute.

[Orbitus]

Since The Hill seems to be a legit source here:
http://thehill.com/opinion/white-hou...ssian-oligarch

Nice opinion piece. Kinda sad that the regular journalists at the Hill hate him because when he posts his opinion articles, it is missing context and has a strong conservative bias, that makes the rest of the Hill articles look bad. That and apparently he likes to make shit up.

- - - Updated - - -

Funny how sources mentioned in the article are all invalid too

I looked at all of the sources in the article, they don't show ANYTHING that shows that Mueller is tied to anyone. It shows that Manafort is though.

[Felya]

You reading things that are not there, you assuming things about other people without any reason, you with that signature and then talking about "cognitive dissonance". At least I am consistent in calling you out for your paranoia...

Let’s test who is paranoid... Do you want to quote linked articles in the opinion piece you linked, that agree with your assertion or are your seeing things that are not there?

[cubby]

I looked at all of the sources in the article, they don't show ANYTHING that shows that Mueller is tied to anyone. It shows that Manafort is though.

Hey, @Monte Baldo - that's four people now that have actually read the article, and the sources, telling you you're wrong. Paying attention yet? *WOKE* yet?

[Levelfive]

Deep state judges and such: https://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckra...dismiss-denied

"Paul Manafort has struck out again in his efforts to get Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s case against him thrown out or curtailed on the basis that Mueller’s investigation was improper.

U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson on Tuesday denied Manafort’s request that she throw out the indictment brought in the criminal case against him in Washington D.C. She had previously thrown out a civil lawsuit Manafort filed against Mueller seeking to narrow his investigation. Manafort’s motion to dismiss the case Mueller brought against him in Virginia is still pending.

Jackson, in her a 36-page opinion, said that the charges Mueller brought against Manafort — which focus on lobbying work he did in Ukraine predating the campaign – fit within the scope of Mueller’s appointment, and that the Justice Department regulations created for special counsel investigations are not enforceable for defendants in court.

She also said that it appeared, nonetheless, that Mueller had followed those regulations."