Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The collusion angle is over. History. The question now, and what the Democrats are going after, is obstruction.He can't tell the truth, because he knows there was never any collusion. It was a plot to get Trumps approval rating low enough to impeach him. Well it failed,and now a real investigation needs to get started and people need to go to jail.My disappointment with Mueller is that he has chosen to leave so much up to interpretation and conjecture.
Predictably, all the silly wingers are highlighting only what supports their set-in-stone opinions and making assumptions that may or may not be true. Because that's what they do.
This stuff is too important for that. I understand his reticence to inject opinion on this matter, since his task was to find facts only. But we need more. The more detail the better, because detail forces out conjecture.
Maybe this will get so fucking ugly that he'll finally feel some obligation to let it all out and tell us what he really thinks. He seems like a guy who is simply too principled and professional for the times.
.
.
Not so sure about that. The conclusion was that there was no finding of evidence. That the evidence was not uncovered…doesn’t mean it is not out there. Like somewhere…OJ’s bloody knife is in a landfill. Do I think it will be found? No. But it’s out there. Evidence that Trump colluded with the Russians…is it on a cell phone of some Russian Intelligence officer? Who knows. I do know that if it is, it’s a great bargaining chip for Putin to have in his pocket. It would explain his light touch when it comes to the thrice-confirmed Russian meddling in our elections, the zero-record of his conversations with Putin while President, etc…
Mueller was invited by President Putin to come to Moscow to interview the Russians he indicted. Why didn't Mueller and his teams go to land fills in the Russian Steppe to examine and do DNA testing of ruined mattresses?
Comparing the DNA found on the mattresses with that of known Russian prostitutes- reputedly the finest prostitutes in the world- could have broken the case.
DNA…mattresses? Wow.
As for the invitation to Moscow…that is a good question. I would love to hear his explanation. Which is again, a good reason for the House to subpoena Mr. Mueller.
My questions would center around the nature of the attempted obstruction.Yeah, agreed, can't argue. There certainly isn't a magic bullet here, especially when we already know the wings will paint anything to their liking.Maybe you're right Mac
he was hired to do a job , his 'opinion' would only muddy the judicial waters ~S~
Loose ends just make things easier for Hannity and Levin and Limbaugh to twist things as they tell their people what to think, that's all.
.Yeah, agreed, can't argue. There certainly isn't a magic bullet here, especially when we already know the wings will paint anything to their liking.Maybe you're right Mac
he was hired to do a job , his 'opinion' would only muddy the judicial waters ~S~
Loose ends just make things easier for Hannity and Levin and Limbaugh to twist things as they tell their people what to think, that's all.
.Yeah, agreed, can't argue. There certainly isn't a magic bullet here, especially when we already know the wings will paint anything to their liking.Maybe you're right Mac
he was hired to do a job , his 'opinion' would only muddy the judicial waters ~S~
Loose ends just make things easier for Hannity and Levin and Limbaugh to twist things as they tell their people what to think, that's all.
.Yeah, agreed, can't argue. There certainly isn't a magic bullet here, especially when we already know the wings will paint anything to their liking.Maybe you're right Mac
he was hired to do a job , his 'opinion' would only muddy the judicial waters ~S~
Loose ends just make things easier for Hannity and Levin and Limbaugh to twist things as they tell their people what to think, that's all.
.
Twist things?
They were the only ones saying correctly that there was no evidence in collusion.I'm pretty sure this whole thing has moved beyond collusion. For the most part, the Dems have given up on that and are concentrating on obstruction. That's where my questions for Mueller would be.My disappointment with Mueller is that he has chosen to leave so much up to interpretation and conjecture.
That's because he could find no evidence of collusion, despite a two-year multimillion-dollar investigation. When you don't have any evidence and you're not willing to be honest, you do exactly what Mueller is doing.
.
Muller's report says he tried to obstruct, but did not happen, because his orders were not carried out.
Trying and actual doing are two different things.
If there is no collusion, then there can not be an obstruction.
Such as, "did Trump bring it up, and then stop when told it could not be done legally, or did he push it and threaten people if they didn't follow his request regardless of its legality?"
I wouldn't look at the former as an impeachable offense, but I'd possibly look at the latter as one.
.
My questions would center around the nature of the attempted obstruction.Yeah, agreed, can't argue. There certainly isn't a magic bullet here, especially when we already know the wings will paint anything to their liking.Maybe you're right Mac
he was hired to do a job , his 'opinion' would only muddy the judicial waters ~S~
Loose ends just make things easier for Hannity and Levin and Limbaugh to twist things as they tell their people what to think, that's all.
.Yeah, agreed, can't argue. There certainly isn't a magic bullet here, especially when we already know the wings will paint anything to their liking.Maybe you're right Mac
he was hired to do a job , his 'opinion' would only muddy the judicial waters ~S~
Loose ends just make things easier for Hannity and Levin and Limbaugh to twist things as they tell their people what to think, that's all.
.Yeah, agreed, can't argue. There certainly isn't a magic bullet here, especially when we already know the wings will paint anything to their liking.Maybe you're right Mac
he was hired to do a job , his 'opinion' would only muddy the judicial waters ~S~
Loose ends just make things easier for Hannity and Levin and Limbaugh to twist things as they tell their people what to think, that's all.
.Yeah, agreed, can't argue. There certainly isn't a magic bullet here, especially when we already know the wings will paint anything to their liking.Maybe you're right Mac
he was hired to do a job , his 'opinion' would only muddy the judicial waters ~S~
Loose ends just make things easier for Hannity and Levin and Limbaugh to twist things as they tell their people what to think, that's all.
.
Twist things?
They were the only ones saying correctly that there was no evidence in collusion.I'm pretty sure this whole thing has moved beyond collusion. For the most part, the Dems have given up on that and are concentrating on obstruction. That's where my questions for Mueller would be.My disappointment with Mueller is that he has chosen to leave so much up to interpretation and conjecture.
That's because he could find no evidence of collusion, despite a two-year multimillion-dollar investigation. When you don't have any evidence and you're not willing to be honest, you do exactly what Mueller is doing.
.
Muller's report says he tried to obstruct, but did not happen, because his orders were not carried out.
Trying and actual doing are two different things.
If there is no collusion, then there can not be an obstruction.
Such as, "did Trump bring it up, and then stop when told it could not be done legally, or did he push it and threaten people if they didn't follow his request regardless of its legality?"
I wouldn't look at the former as an impeachable offense, but I'd possibly look at the latter as one.
.
I know that I would not have done something that was wrong, and threatening someone to break the law would fall under that category.My questions would center around the nature of the attempted obstruction.Yeah, agreed, can't argue. There certainly isn't a magic bullet here, especially when we already know the wings will paint anything to their liking.
Loose ends just make things easier for Hannity and Levin and Limbaugh to twist things as they tell their people what to think, that's all.
.Yeah, agreed, can't argue. There certainly isn't a magic bullet here, especially when we already know the wings will paint anything to their liking.
Loose ends just make things easier for Hannity and Levin and Limbaugh to twist things as they tell their people what to think, that's all.
.Yeah, agreed, can't argue. There certainly isn't a magic bullet here, especially when we already know the wings will paint anything to their liking.
Loose ends just make things easier for Hannity and Levin and Limbaugh to twist things as they tell their people what to think, that's all.
.Yeah, agreed, can't argue. There certainly isn't a magic bullet here, especially when we already know the wings will paint anything to their liking.
Loose ends just make things easier for Hannity and Levin and Limbaugh to twist things as they tell their people what to think, that's all.
.
Twist things?
They were the only ones saying correctly that there was no evidence in collusion.I'm pretty sure this whole thing has moved beyond collusion. For the most part, the Dems have given up on that and are concentrating on obstruction. That's where my questions for Mueller would be.My disappointment with Mueller is that he has chosen to leave so much up to interpretation and conjecture.
That's because he could find no evidence of collusion, despite a two-year multimillion-dollar investigation. When you don't have any evidence and you're not willing to be honest, you do exactly what Mueller is doing.
.
Muller's report says he tried to obstruct, but did not happen, because his orders were not carried out.
Trying and actual doing are two different things.
If there is no collusion, then there can not be an obstruction.
Such as, "did Trump bring it up, and then stop when told it could not be done legally, or did he push it and threaten people if they didn't follow his request regardless of its legality?"
I wouldn't look at the former as an impeachable offense, but I'd possibly look at the latter as one.
.My questions would center around the nature of the attempted obstruction.Yeah, agreed, can't argue. There certainly isn't a magic bullet here, especially when we already know the wings will paint anything to their liking.
Loose ends just make things easier for Hannity and Levin and Limbaugh to twist things as they tell their people what to think, that's all.
.Yeah, agreed, can't argue. There certainly isn't a magic bullet here, especially when we already know the wings will paint anything to their liking.
Loose ends just make things easier for Hannity and Levin and Limbaugh to twist things as they tell their people what to think, that's all.
.Yeah, agreed, can't argue. There certainly isn't a magic bullet here, especially when we already know the wings will paint anything to their liking.
Loose ends just make things easier for Hannity and Levin and Limbaugh to twist things as they tell their people what to think, that's all.
.Yeah, agreed, can't argue. There certainly isn't a magic bullet here, especially when we already know the wings will paint anything to their liking.
Loose ends just make things easier for Hannity and Levin and Limbaugh to twist things as they tell their people what to think, that's all.
.
Twist things?
They were the only ones saying correctly that there was no evidence in collusion.I'm pretty sure this whole thing has moved beyond collusion. For the most part, the Dems have given up on that and are concentrating on obstruction. That's where my questions for Mueller would be.My disappointment with Mueller is that he has chosen to leave so much up to interpretation and conjecture.
That's because he could find no evidence of collusion, despite a two-year multimillion-dollar investigation. When you don't have any evidence and you're not willing to be honest, you do exactly what Mueller is doing.
.
Muller's report says he tried to obstruct, but did not happen, because his orders were not carried out.
Trying and actual doing are two different things.
If there is no collusion, then there can not be an obstruction.
Such as, "did Trump bring it up, and then stop when told it could not be done legally, or did he push it and threaten people if they didn't follow his request regardless of its legality?"
I wouldn't look at the former as an impeachable offense, but I'd possibly look at the latter as one.
.
How would you have handled it, knowing full well that you did not collude and this whole thing was a hoax?
From what I take on reading the report, he asked them, but they did not follow though with his requests.
The point is it never happened because they knew the laws on this better than him.
It's exactly why our Presidents have these people around him.
Looking at it your way, he would have fired them if it had happened that way in your theory.
Except I never supported the investigation.Yes, he was.Herein lies the problem with Mueller. That was not his only task. He was also given the task of prosecuting crimes that happen along the way.
No, he was not.
He was tasked to discover any relationship with the Trump campaign and russian agents involved with manipulating the election.
There was none.
Even if there was, what would be illegal about it?
Furthermore, if there was any russian involvement, it was the release of information that exposed the deliberate disenfranchisement of the Sanders voters in order to make sure hitlery won the DNC primary. THAT SHOULD BE WHAT LIBERALS ARE PISSED ABOUT, but they would rather be pissed that Trump won.
(b) The Special Counsel is authorized to conduct the investigation confinned by then-FBI Director James 8. Corney in testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on March 20, 2017, including:
(i) any links and/or coordination bet ween the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump; and
(ii) any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation; and
(iii) any other matters within the scope of 28 C.F.R. § 600.4(a). (c) If the Special Counsel believes it is necessary and appropriate, the Special Counsel is authorized to prosecute federal crimes arising from the investigation of these matters.
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3726408/Rosenstein-letter-appointing-Mueller-special.pdf
Exactly how did Stormy Daniels "arise" out of that investigation? How did Manafort's loan application that had already been investigated before "arise" out of russian collusion?
I know you feel compelled to support anything and everything that could harm Trump, but give it a rest.
It was a shit show, there was no cause for it, it's over with, and it's likely to end up leading to more prosecutions of federal agents and employees than any of Trump's friends or associates.
My disappointment with Mueller is that he has chosen to leave so much up to interpretation and conjecture.
Predictably, all the silly wingers are highlighting only what supports their set-in-stone opinions and making assumptions that may or may not be true. Because that's what they do.
This stuff is too important for that. I understand his reticence to inject opinion on this matter, since his task was to find facts only. But we need more. The more detail the better, because detail forces out conjecture.
Maybe this will get so fucking ugly that he'll finally feel some obligation to let it all out and tell us what he really thinks. He seems like a guy who is simply too principled and professional for the times.
.Or is Mueller just another partisan hack doing what he's always done on behalf of Republican presidents?Maybe this will get so fucking ugly that he'll finally feel some obligation to let it all out and tell us what he really thinks. He seems like a guy who is simply too principled and professional for the times.
Mueller’s History of Cover-Ups
"What some people don’t know about Mueller is that he has a long history of leading government investigations that were diversions or cover-ups.
"These include the investigation into the 1988 bombing of Pan Am Flight 103, the investigation into the terrorist financing Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI), and the FBI investigations into the crimes of September 11th, 2001.
"Today the public is beginning to realize that Mueller’s investigation into Russian collusion with the Trump campaign is a similar diversion."
I think he laid out a very clear case for obstruction of justice. See here;He has no principles or morals. He knew there never was collusion or obstruction but by continuing in ambiguity, he can keep the libs frothing.
I think he laid out a very clear case for obstruction of justice. See here;He has no principles or morals. He knew there never was collusion or obstruction but by continuing in ambiguity, he can keep the libs frothing.
Former Republican Prosecutors Release Damning Video Calling For Trumps Prosecution For Obsruction
My disappointment with Mueller is that he has chosen to leave so much up to interpretation and conjecture.
Predictably, all the silly wingers are highlighting only what supports their set-in-stone opinions and making assumptions that may or may not be true. Because that's what they do.
This stuff is too important for that. I understand his reticence to inject opinion on this matter, since his task was to find facts only. But we need more. The more detail the better, because detail forces out conjecture.
Maybe this will get so fucking ugly that he'll finally feel some obligation to let it all out and tell us what he really thinks. He seems like a guy who is simply too principled and professional for the times.
.
Mueller is shaking in his boots. HE'S SHAKING IN HIS BOOTS. Meadows and Jordan and these guys, they'd eviscerate him.
a forfeit, and a wise choice Mr Mueller!
That you saw nothing is probably representative of a lack principles.I think he laid out a very clear case for obstruction of justice. See here;He has no principles or morals. He knew there never was collusion or obstruction but by continuing in ambiguity, he can keep the libs frothing.
Former Republican Prosecutors Release Damning Video Calling For Trumps Prosecution For Obsruction
I read through that and saw no compelling evidence. Ive seen no evidence for anything, obstruction, collusion, or any wrongdoing.
That you saw nothing is probably representative of a lack principles.I think he laid out a very clear case for obstruction of justice. See here;He has no principles or morals. He knew there never was collusion or obstruction but by continuing in ambiguity, he can keep the libs frothing.
Former Republican Prosecutors Release Damning Video Calling For Trumps Prosecution For Obsruction
I read through that and saw no compelling evidence. Ive seen no evidence for anything, obstruction, collusion, or any wrongdoing.
That you saw nothing is probably representative of a lack principles.I think he laid out a very clear case for obstruction of justice. See here;He has no principles or morals. He knew there never was collusion or obstruction but by continuing in ambiguity, he can keep the libs frothing.
Former Republican Prosecutors Release Damning Video Calling For Trumps Prosecution For Obsruction
I read through that and saw no compelling evidence. Ive seen no evidence for anything, obstruction, collusion, or any wrongdoing.
My disappointment with Mueller is that he has chosen to leave so much up to interpretation and conjecture. Predictably, all the silly wingers are highlighting only what supports their set-in-stone opinions and making assumptions that may or may not be true. Because that's what they do...
Of course, you ASSUME that is the case.My guess is that he approached this as factual only, and didn't want to try to tie up loose ends or make assumptions...If he were really principled, he would have left no ambiguities in his silly and excessively long report.
Well, it could be one or the other, and no doubt opinions on that will conveniently and predictably fall along partisan lines.My disappointment with Mueller is that he has chosen to leave so much up to interpretation and conjecture. Predictably, all the silly wingers are highlighting only what supports their set-in-stone opinions and making assumptions that may or may not be true. Because that's what they do...Of course, you ASSUME that is the case.My guess is that he approached this as factual only, and didn't want to try to tie up loose ends or make assumptions...If he were really principled, he would have left no ambiguities in his silly and excessively long report.
OddB is correct ... what you see as "a guy who is simply too principled and professional for the times" may actually be an aloof POS with a personal or political agenda - his story will provide him with a lucrative book deal - who is unwilling to expose himself to the vitriol and vagaries of public scrutiny.
My disappointment with Mueller is that he has chosen to leave so much up to interpretation and conjecture.
Predictably, all the silly wingers are highlighting only what supports their set-in-stone opinions and making assumptions that may or may not be true. Because that's what they do.
This stuff is too important for that. I understand his reticence to inject opinion on this matter, since his task was to find facts only. But we need more. The more detail the better, because detail forces out conjecture.
Maybe this will get so fucking ugly that he'll finally feel some obligation to let it all out and tell us what he really thinks. He seems like a guy who is simply too principled and professional for the times.
.Herein lies the problem with Mueller. That was not his only task. He was also given the task of prosecuting crimes that happen along the way.since his task was to find facts only
No evidence? The entire vol. 2 of the Mueller report suggests there is plenty of evidence.That you saw nothing is probably representative of a lack principles.I think he laid out a very clear case for obstruction of justice. See here;He has no principles or morals. He knew there never was collusion or obstruction but by continuing in ambiguity, he can keep the libs frothing.
Former Republican Prosecutors Release Damning Video Calling For Trumps Prosecution For Obsruction
I read through that and saw no compelling evidence. Ive seen no evidence for anything, obstruction, collusion, or any wrongdoing.
No, there is just no evidence. Has nothing to do with lack of principles.
