Mueller Investigation

is that comic Ron White in disguise on the left?

I only saw the summary of the sheep report - he's a baaaaaaaaad man!

I call for a special counsel mueller to investigate the credible and serious charges that have been levied against Packard that he repeatedly engaged in carnal activity with beasts, to wit, dogs or sheep (there are credible reports surrounding both accusations). Any one second it?

It will be so righteous and good for the board to settle this once and for all; anyone in opposition must be in league with Hades.

If Packard is an honest and truthful man, he will quickly add his support to finding the truth behind this matter.

Migod, you do have a sense of humor -! Well done, sir. May we expect to see more of this wit in future posts?

They already have. The House Democrats pivoted to healthcare right after they took the house...and now Trump is trying to repeal Obamacare again without a replacement, which is pretty good timing for the Dems.

A summary of a summary written by people with obvious conflicts of interests is not good enough.

You sound very smug considering 34 criminals were cqught and the investigation ran a net profit of several tens of millions of dollars.

Says the loudest russia birther.

Three years of lies and propaganda and no evidence of collusion. Whoops.

You're their apparent target, what will the propaganda networks come up with next? And whatever it turns out to be, how certain are you already that Trump did it?

And is the NYT WaPo prized pullitzer achieved for their groundbreaking work on Russia fraud a bigger joke than Obama's Nobel? Or a smaller joke?

"russia birther"? Is it @Tuttle's contention that Obama was born in Russia? Well, that changes everything.

Oh, lots of evidence of collusion. Just not enough to prosecute defendant #36 if Barr is to be believed. There is a reason your guys are hiding the report and it isn’t because it makes them look so good.

The collusion hoax of course.

You sound like Clapper - 'if Trump wasn't guilt then why did Trump complain so strongly about investigation into Russia interference?'

Because nobody but you and Clapper was really talking about Russia interference, that shit's old news. The fact that Russia “interfered” had nothing whatever to do with Trump.

Russia Interference:
Five people to blame, Head of CIA Brennan, Head of FBI Comey, Head of NIA Clapper, AG Lynch, and Head of State Obama.

But what really happened?

Hillary lost, picked herself up, and latched onto one of her delusional rationalizations, that she lost because of "Russia." And the compliant press took its cue and ran with it, fueled later by the "Dossier."

It’s more obvious if you step back: the two concepts (Russia interference, and Russia collusion) are too easily conflated. In Trump's mind the claim of "Russia" only referred to “collusion,” because Trump thinks in terms of public perception. And that was same context I used.

Most people hear "Russia" as translated to "Trump campaign collusion with Russia." The same topic that Hillary was complaining about - that she only lost because Trump stole it aided by Russia.

In contrast, only a few people hear "Russia" to broadly include several different levels of possible Russia interference (Russia bots with fake news, Russian "prostitutes" pimping to the NRA, Russia organizing pro Hillary and pro Trump events to sow confrontations and dissent, AND Trump campaign collusion).

But Trump's actually quite savvy about MSM techniques to spread lies - he quickly identified that all that other "Russia" stuff had nothing really to do with him or his peeps - each and every one (except actual "collusion") reflected on the Administration in power right up until the election.

Had the topic from the outset been clearly contained to 'Russia attempts to interfere in US election', then there would've been no need for special counsel. No conflict of interest if Trump is Pres. and investigation targets mostly worked for the past administration.

Only when you introduce the concept of “collusion” does the need for special prosecutor become real. And that's why I echoed Trump's use of "Russia" in this context - it only refers to the collusion hoax. By all means, let us all dig into the Russia interference attacks on America, I would love to learn the full story behind that. !! The last guy claims he had no scandals, hah.

Here's the thing, what Pompeo's saying basically plays into the hands of the folks saying that Trump's Putin's puppet. That seems an odd position to take.

This is like saying that just because someone trolls people online with racist and homophobic remarks doesn't mean that they're a bad person in real life. How good of a person can you be if your hobby is spewing racist and homophobic remarks? As for the harm, people have stated that they were harassed because of this, others had sensitive personal information like their Social Security Number (which leaves them extremely vulnerable to identity theft) posted online. Isn't that enough? Or do you require someone to actually be killed for this to fall in the category of a "bad thing"?

Oh, come on, man. For all the failures of things like the security systems of corporations like Equifax, etc., you'll notice that nobody like Anonymous has been able to wipe them off the map. There are certain kinds of operations which, even if you don't know the individuals directly responsible for the actions, you know that it has to be a nation-state behind them, because the type of hack and the amount of data gained is just too much for some wanker in his mother's basement to have gotten. Are you going to try to claim (he asks, knowing that you will) it never crossed Assange's mind that the stuff he got from the DNC might have come from Russia? Even after non-US intelligence agencies have provided proof of Russian efforts to hack various government agencies?

Yes, yes, we both know that the US government hates Wikileaks and that's there's some weirdness associated with the charges lodged against Assange which have resulted in him hiding out in the Ecuadorian embassy for all these years. You don't think that would leave him with an axe to grind against members of the Obama Administration and that he might be more inclined to release information about Hillary than he would the GOP? Let me point out that one of the major lefty magazines in the US revealed that the GOP was hacked in 2018 and yet, strangely, none of that information was leaked.

Yes, on an obscure armpit of a message board.

In an entirely different thread on a different topic. Why is that you felt the need to drag it into this thread? You'll also note that I've frequently said (no matter who it is, and what government it is) that public proclamations aren't necessarily what's discussed behind the scenes.

And what's your point? Did not Trump publicly say that he hoped Russia was able to find the missing emails?



Let me take you back to a simpler time. 2012. Obama was running for re-election and a couple of late-night TV show comics decided that they'd like to have some fun showing just how fucked up American politics were, by forming a SuperPAC and running for President. As part of this, they highlighted how it was very easy, under US law, to coordinate operations, without violating the restrictions that they not have any contact with one another. Skip to the 3:50 mark of this clip, where you can see an example of a major US political figure doing just that.

Yeah, about that. Let me first point you to this bit about a very conservative, very Republican judge who works for Fox News who said

In case you're not familiar with Napolitano, he's a very conservative judge, who tends to adhere quite closely to the GOP positions on things. If he's saying something like that (and let me point out that we do not have an official statement as to how big Mueller's report is), then I'm inclined to listen. Now, maybe he's been fed the wrong information (which leads one to wonder who is feeding him that), but if he was, then it seems to me that whoever fed him that did such a good job, that he's inclined to disregard his political biases (and they are legion), and I find that hard to believe. I vehemently disagree with very much that he says most of the time because I think that he allows himself to be blinded by politics. That he's saying "There is something there" has me perking my ears up, because I would expect him to just agree with Barr on any particular subject.

I will also point you to this podcast episode which is hosted by a classmate of Rod Rosenstein. He also knows (in a professional capacity) people on both sides of the political spectrum who are involved in this. In his opinion (and given his professional status, he knows more about the subject matter than either you or I), there is a considerable amount of spin in Barr's 4-page summary to minimize the involvement of the Russians in the 2016 election, and he believes (for reasons which he explains) that Mueller crafted his report in such a manner so as to require Congress to investigate things.

But let me leave you with a couple of questions: Do you think that if Republicans were given the choice of following the law and losing the election or violating the law, that they would pick following the law? And do you think that when the members of the Obama Administration said that they tried to get the Republicans to agree to sign a joint statement that the Russians were attempting to influence the 2016 election that they were lying?

"In case you're not familiar with Napolitano, he's a very conservative judge, who tends to adhere quite closely to the GOP positions on things."

I am very familiar with Napolitano and he's like the 0-16 Detroit Lions on his "predictions" over the last few years. He's constantly wrong.

I wouldn't take his word if he wore a red tie on TV and said, "Look my tie is red."

^For years I've been muting (or FF past) Napolitano whenever he speaks on Varney's Business News Channel program (which is pretty frequently). If I don't have buffer in the DVR I'll just change to CNBC which is also decent financial news channel.

I don't see Fox News much (except some of their "pure news" programs), but Fox channels (including FBN) have lots of people supposedly "conservative" or "Republican" or "right wing" who I don't find worthwhile to listen to. Including both the lefties and righties on Fox, I find about 1/3 are worthless, 1/3 are selectively worth hearing a bit of what they think about topics (many sound like kids), and 1/3 worth listening to even when I strongly disagree. Napolitano is one of those 'nevers.'

But would you say that he disagreed with the GOP in his statements?

So you disagree with him when he says that Trump knows more about dealing with bad guys than Congress does. And you agree with Trump that the NYT committed treason. You as well think that the government was "Gestapo-like" when it arrested Roger Stone. Right?

At least one Fox contributor says that there's no difference between the network and Trump. That's the guy who got fired from NPR for being racist.

And there was no difference between Obama and NBC, MSNBC, ABC, CNN, CBS and the newspapers.

Obama's first four years he hired 25 journalists to work in his administration.

So?

^I watch "the five" for Gutfeld (funny guy, pretty smart), so I listen to Juan a lot and rarely agree with him, he's an avenue directly into Democrat dogma (a disturbing place). So obviously I think Juan is a partisan shill - but he's a good man and I like him as a person (believes marriage is good thing, likes America), just assume he's lying a lot to keep his leftie credentials because he can't possibly be as dumb or brainwashed as he so frequently sounds. If Juan is talking about Hannity or Ingram then he's accurate that Fox News is Trump PR. But it's not true of others, e.g. anti Trump Shep Smith, and Neal Cavuto, and only partly true of others like Tucker Carlson (opinion show: complains about capitalism being heartless but ignores that regulation is supposed to supply the heart, whines Amazon doesn't pay enough, runs features that Amazon workers live out of their cars).

But Hannity at Fox can be fairly compared with the entire networks of all three majors, and cable news channels CNN and MSNBC as equally shills for their party of choice (one to five is not bad).

how so?

Not I.

Barr is the current villain, Mueller is fine and the only people I see ragging on him now are the same ones who have been saying for 2 years "Mueller will not save us!"

Meanwhile, you and Tuttle need to get some mops and clean the floor in here, or do a better job at hitting the kleenex - preferably both.

As I noted elsewhere, the white conservative has an endless capacity for insisting they are the put-upon victim in every situation while simultaneously being absolutely convinced they are intellectually and morally (and often physically) superior.

The cognitive dissonance is magnificent to behold

^Zombie (and I) are winners not victims.

America has seen its best week in 28 months! Victims don't celebrate (unless they're called smollet).

how so?[/quote]

Because you posted the following:

What sort of colossal moron wants a known murderer to sit in the office for 4 years just because venal partisans in his own party refuse to remove him?

Which wasn't at all what I had posted.

So she read colossal moron and just assumed it was you? easy mistake. You would have to forgive her for that one. If I heard biggest village idiot ever, or Arkansas dumbass, or assistant gym coach I pretty much think of you even though there are probably a bunch of you polluting the gene pool.

This bears repeating, frequently.

If they keep whining, I might put it in Quotes.

Various reports have the Mueller Report (which none of us have seen yet) runs anywhere from 300 to 700 pages. If Mueller followed standard practice and included an executive summary that could mean that we're all speculating on the summary of a summary.