Will You Accept the Findings of the Muller Probe?

[Hotdog]

I read most of your posts. I try not to respond, as although in a different class than Hack, NAOS, or DutchRudder, you're still pretty one sided. But as it turns out, I'm out of ****s today.

Dang. Hard core bro.

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

I read most of your posts. I try not to respond, as although in a different class than Hack, NAOS, or DutchRudder, you're still pretty one sided. But as it turns out, I'm out of ****s today.

Thriller threw out the genius claim that he hadn't heard any Dems worrying about what the Barr investigation might uncover as evidence they weren't worried about it in that sense (apparently we're supposed to believe the Dem's worry is that transparency is a threat to national security and that the investigation is actually an attempt to distract). I, facetiously, threw out the claim that I hadn't heard Trump worry about what the Mueller investigation might uncover (because I know that only a fool would tell an investigator that they have something to hide). You explained to me that I was failing to read between the lines of Trump statements. I, facetiously, said that I forgot that we are supposed to read between the lines with regard to Trump but not his enemies (since I assumed you were joining in on the existing conversation). Apparently you were trying to take the conversation in some different direction. Oh well.

 

[LogGrad98]

Lmao.

Cmon guy.

You keep trying that.

If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck...

Shoot it?

 

[Harambe]

Thriller threw out the genius claim that he hadn't heard any Dems worrying about what the Barr investigation might uncover as evidence they weren't worried about it in that sense (apparently we're supposed to believe the Dem's worry is that transparency is a threat to national security and that the investigation is actually an attempt to distract). I, facetiously, threw out the claim that I hadn't heard Trump worry about what the Mueller investigation might uncover (because I know that only a fool would tell an investigator that they have something to hide). You explained to me that I was failing to read between the lines of Trump statements. I, facetiously, said that I forgot that we are supposed to read between the lines with regard to Trump but not his enemies (since I assumed you were joining in on the existing conversation). Apparently you were trying to take the conversation in some different direction. Oh well.

This part of your post is important. Yes, I did try to steer the conversation away from posturing. I gathered that you were over-reacting on purpose, but even doing that is throwing partisanship. Rather than calling out based on far left/far right(which you don't understand), I tried to use an absolute value(non-partisan victim-hood illustrated by posturing either direction).

You simply didn't catch what I was throwing.

 

[fishonjazz]

I haven't heard Trump worry about what the Dems will "uncover" either. Guess we ought to just drop that investigation as well.

Is that why he obstructed the investigation every chance he got? Cause he wasn't worried?

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app

 

[One Brow]

Thats not how its supposed to work though. They started out with the conclusion and have worked their way backwards.

Like pretty much any other investigation, as long as you replace "conclusion" with "hypothesis".

Even went as far as setting people up. They aren't following the evidence.

Setting up who, how?

People are presumed innocent. Not the other way around.

If everyone is innocent in the eyes of the investigator, there is no need for an investigation. Don't confuse a trial standard with investigatory protocols.

Its as simple as this. Trump opened his mouth and said stupid things about asking Russia to help. The Dems saw that as an opportunity to pin a conspiracy on him, and drag his name through the mud. Its dirty politics. Thats all that is going on here. Its plain as day to see.

Well before Trump opened his mouth, George Papadopoulos did, and that kicked off the investigation.

If there were evidence to convict Trump of a crime Muller would have said so.

Mueller says the opposite. He says it would be unfair to accuse Trump when Trump could not indicted and acquitted.

There never was and the Dems who set this up knew there wasn't. They politicized the DOJ and FBI and now ironically are mad that Trump is doing the same thing.

f they feed you a lie long enough, and the lie is pleasing enough, truth ceases to matter.

We should all be ashamed of all of it. Instead you clowns willfully go along with the crap the Dems are doing, forcing regular people to take sides with someone who we might not normally side with. Your stupidity is pushing the country to a 2nd term for Trump.

I stand by the Mueller report. Do you?

 

[One Brow]

You are the one who said that the texts were various hypotheses.

No, I said investigators form hypotheses. I never claimed those texts as such.

If you were being investigated and discovered that the investigator was having private conversations about you of the nature that Strozk was having I'm confident that you'd have a problem with it. You would be able to see that he shouldn't be on your case, and I would agree.

I agree that if Strozk's boss knew about the texts, he should have been removed. However, that is not proof of misconduct.

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

This part of your post is important. Yes, I did try to steer the conversation away from posturing. I gathered that you were over-reacting on purpose, but even doing that is throwing partisanship. Rather than calling out based on far left/far right(which you don't understand), I tried to use an absolute value(non-partisan victim-hood illustrated by posturing either direction).

You simply didn't catch what I was throwing.

Interesting. I have seen you as hyper-partisan from way back, so much so that I had mostly quit reading your posts, but based on your claims here I will start reading them again to see if you are actually practicing what you are preaching.

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

Is that why he obstructed the investigation every chance he got? Cause he wasn't worried?

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app

Here we go again.

Yes, and it's the same reason that the Dems are trying to interfere with the investigation into why the investigation started, right?

 

[Harambe]

Interesting. I have seen you as hyper-partisan from way back, so much so that I had mostly quit reading your posts, but based on your claims here I will start reading them again to see if you are actually practicing what you are preaching.

Do you think your perception could have been skewed by partisanship, or victim-hood on your part? Have you considered that maybe because I'm ANY further left than you, you could have misinterpreted that as hyper-partisanship?

Admittedly, I do have some crazy ideas. And have had some crazy ideas. And very easily fall to the left side of the room. That doesn't make me hyper-partisan.

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

No, I said investigators form hypotheses. I never claimed those texts as such.



I agree that if Strozk's boss knew about the texts, he should have been removed. However, that is not proof of misconduct.

In Strozk's texts he mentioned wanting to discuss the "media leaking strategy" with that lady who you say caught his eye. As far as I know it has not been proven that strategy was ever actually discussed or implemented by him. But we do know for certain that someone was leaking a lot of information, so I hope that we can agree that if it turns out that Strozk was involved in these leaks in any way that that will be sufficient to prove misconduct.

In reality, I fully expect that if such a piece of evidence does turn up that the Strozk fans will find ways to spin it for all it is worth. I also know that those same people would be crucifying him already if his texts had shown partisanship in the opposite direction.

A separate question: There was a ton of leaking going on, especially when Trump first took office. Is that evidence that someone was performing misconduct to you, or doesn't it matter unless we know exactly who the leakers were? Do you want to know who the leakers were?

 

[Hotdog]

Here we go again.

Yes, and it's the same reason that the Dems are trying to interfere with the investigation into why the investigation started, right?

Haha. Exactly.

Funny how they cant see their own hypocrisy. I legitimately think they actually cant see it. Im not sure its on purpose. Could be, but I dont know.

A good level headed person would admit to such a thing, but I haven't seen one of them do it.