Will You Accept the Findings of the Muller Probe?

[Joe Bagadonuts]

Change my mind. I JUST, minutes ago, eyeballed the wiki's for it. No, that's not enough, so I clicked a bunch of the links at the bottom, too. Many were not from a biased source.

Help me see it your way.

You said they were only investigating a couple of suspect texts. They are looking at the FISA warrant applications and hearings to determine how the decision was made to spy on American citizens. They are looking at the dossier to determine its origins. They are investigating what weight the dossier was given in the FISA court and whether the fact that the author of the dossier admitted that it was unverified information in advance of the application was communicated to the judge. They are asking why the dossier was marked as verified once the warrant was issued even though we are unaware that it ever was. They are looking into the claim that the investigation originated as an "insurance policy." They are undoubtedly looking at numerous other curious things about the origin and history of the investigation as well.

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

Actually, he misread one of his keys. His system predicted a popular vote win for Clinton (which happened, just like his system predicted the popular vote for Gore in 2000).

He describes his prediction here:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...rrectly/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.1b0837d28140

Note the sixth key is dependent on Johnson getting over 5% of the vote. Johnson actually got 3.27% of the vote.

I can't see the article through the paywall though the title seems to suggest that he predicted a Trump win. Other articles also say he predicted a Trump win. Your claim seems odd because he is not correcting people who claim that he correctly predicted a Trump win, but whatever.

 

[Hotdog]

Actually, he misread one of his keys. His system predicted a popular vote win for Clinton (which happened, just like his system predicted the popular vote for Gore in 2000).

He describes his prediction here:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...rrectly/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.1b0837d28140

Note the sixth key is dependent on Johnson getting over 5% of the vote. Johnson actually got 3.27% of the vote.

Wait, I thought you only get your news from NPR?

 

[Hotdog]

Wow. Does even Hannity believe this? How can you say this with a straight face?

Hannity is right on the trail of the crooked Dems. He has been spot on for the last couple years about this whole Russia scandal. Why would you doubt him now?

Its weird that no matter how many times your peeps are wrong you still believe them, and no matter how many time the people you dont like get it right you continue to doubt them? Doesnt it get old being wrong. Cmon join the good guys already.

 

[Gameface]

I think it's impossible to judge Trump by a normal person's standards. He is not normal at all. And I get that you would not make the same sorts of decisions he has (neither would I) but it is pretty crazy to categorize him as stupid. If you didn't hate him so much I think you could see that he's been incredibly successful in a wide variety of different endeavors.

Donald Trump would be TWICE as wealthy had he dumped all of his money into a mutual fund in the late 70s. He has substantially underperformed the market. Any fool with a 401k has made a significantly better business decision than Trump ever has, and those fools wouldn't be supplementing their wealth by being a reality TV star.

Get a ****ing clue. Trump isn't smart, he hasn't made very good business decisions, he doesn't have good ideas, he doesn't surround himself with the smartest people. He is afraid of smart people. He makes decisions that feed his ego. He's a rich frat boy who never grew up.

To idolize a person like him says a lot about the people who do.

We've all worked with blowhard assholes. We've all wondered how the hell they got where they are. Telling their obviously fake self-aggrandizing stories, belittling good people, boasting and bleating about the most mundane of accomplishments.

Well, apparently around 40% of Americans find those behaviours to be impressive and indicative of intelligence and accomplishment. That's how those idiots got where they are. One more mystery solved.

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

Literally no one is claiming that. No one thinks that Trump's tweets/speeches interfered with Mueller's investigation/count as obstruction. Do you really have no idea of what Trump actually did?

Would it be impossible for you to go back and look at the context of this discussion, or is it that important to you to try to misinterpret the meaning of everything?

 

[One Brow]

I can't see the article through the paywall though the title seems to suggest that he predicted a Trump win. Other articles also say he predicted a Trump win. Your claim seems odd because he is not correcting people who claim that he correctly predicted a Trump win, but whatever.

If you were really interested, you could probably find other articles. It would not be unknown for a person to take an undeserved win. I suppose it doesn't really matter.

 

[One Brow]

Wait, I thought you only get your news from NPR?

I used Google to find this article for research. Do you think an article from October 2016 predicting the outcome of the election is "news"?

 

[One Brow]

Would it be impossible for you to go back and look at the context of this discussion, or is it that important to you to try to misinterpret the meaning of everything?

You mean, the context where you refer to Democrats making tweets and speeches as being interference, and claim they said the same thing about Trump? Some other context?

 

[Harambe]

You said they were only investigating a couple of suspect texts. They are looking at the FISA warrant applications and hearings to determine how the decision was made to spy on American citizens. They are looking at the dossier to determine its origins. They are investigating what weight the dossier was given in the FISA court and whether the fact that the author of the dossier admitted that it was unverified information in advance of the application was communicated to the judge. They are asking why the dossier was marked as verified once the warrant was issued even though we are unaware that it ever was. They are looking into the claim that the investigation originated as an "insurance policy." They are undoubtedly looking at numerous other curious things about the origin and history of the investigation as well.

First, "They".. they who? Nothing's changed since crying on twitter came out, and there's not real concern from Democrats, Independents, or moderate Republicans.

The best information available about the judge signing FISA warrants is that the first request was denied, the second request once drawn more narrowly, was approved. This is pretty standard practice. This was approved, and arguably spying. But if it was "spying", all data currently supports it being legal; the DoJ went by the book. The Steele dossier wasn't the only piece of information the judge had. Even if it was, Christopher Steele headed up MI-6's Russia desk for three years. While not an expert in Donald Trump, he has extensive experience dealing with Russia, and finding someone better OR more experienced is a very tall order. Even now, some of it's been corroborated, much of it is still uncorroborated, and only one point is something we could rule out.

It feels like the heart of the argument "they" are looking into revolves around the judge. So lets follow that road.

1. Does any actual evidence exist that we should question the FISA judge?
2. That we should question this judge's motives?
3. Has this judge previously displayed an inability to set aside any prejudice they have to follow the law?
4. Anything that supports "someone else" directed this judge to sign off on it?

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

Donald Trump would be TWICE as wealthy had he dumped all of his money into a mutual fund in the late 70s. He has substantially underperformed the market. Any fool with a 401k has made a significantly better business decision than Trump ever has, and those fools wouldn't be supplementing their wealth by being a reality TV star.

Get a ****ing clue. Trump isn't smart, he hasn't made very good business decisions, he doesn't have good ideas, he doesn't surround himself with the smartest people. He is afraid of smart people. He makes decisions that feed his ego. He's a rich frat boy who never grew up.

To idolize a person like him says a lot about the people who do.

We've all worked with blowhard assholes. We've all wondered how the hell they got where they are. Telling their obviously fake self-aggrandizing stories, belittling good people, boasting and bleating about the most mundane of accomplishments.

Well, apparently around 40% of Americans find those behaviours to be impressive and indicative of intelligence and accomplishment. That's how those idiots got where they are. One more mystery solved.

Trump has not achieved my version of success, but I think it's pretty obvious he has achieved his. I get that you don't like him, but to suggest that he's not intelligent or has not been successful is flat out silly. On a side note, based on your financial advice I'm guessing you are now rolling in dough these days. Congrats on that!

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

First, "They".. they who? Nothing's changed since crying on twitter came out, and there's not real concern from Democrats, Independents, or moderate Republicans.

The best information available about the judge signing FISA warrants is that the first request was denied, the second request once drawn more narrowly, was approved. This is pretty standard practice. This was approved, and arguably spying. But if it was "spying", all data currently supports it being legal; the DoJ went by the book. The Steele dossier wasn't the only piece of information the judge had. Even if it was, Christopher Steele headed up MI-6's Russia desk for three years. While not an expert in Donald Trump, he has extensive experience dealing with Russia, and finding someone better OR more experienced is a very tall order. Even now, some of it's been corroborated, much of it is still uncorroborated, and only one point is something we could rule out.

It feels like the heart of the argument "they" are looking into revolves around the judge. So lets follow that road.

1. Does any actual evidence exist that we should question the FISA judge?
2. That we should question this judge's motives?
3. Has this judge previously displayed an inability to set aside any prejudice they have to follow the law?
4. Anything that supports "someone else" directed this judge to sign off on it?

I guess you're going to have to wait for their report to come out to find out the answers to your questions.