2 minutes ago, UncleTouchyFingers said:

 

The investigation was extremely important, that chit isnt funny and it exposed some really unfavorable behavior by HRC, Obama & Co and overall complacency. 

 

The hell is the matter with you? 

 I agree, the investigations on Benghazi , Ten of them , where congress spend more time on them than investigating 911 was important to the Republicans. Unfortunately not to the country. 

16 minutes ago, UncleTouchyFingers said:

 

Nowhere in that post is anyone on this board saying they should be investigated. They are simply showing you unethical and/or questionable business practices from your own beloved and squeaky clean side. 

as John McEnroe used to say "You gotta be kidding" 

A moral equivalence was being made.  and the question was made "why the media  and the democrats are not talking about, them to which I replied, "why the republicans  who are in charge are not saying anything, could it be that there is nothing to be said"

This conversation is going nowhere if your side will use selective reasoning .

Edited December 1, 20187 yr by sirineou

34 minutes ago, riclag said:

It's apparent that Mueller is forcing Cohen to lie!

Lying seems to b second nature to those in the sphere of influence... A feature, not a bug. Good thing Mueller will verify.

27 minutes ago, UncleTouchyFingers said:

nobody is calling for an investigation into Bidens family or Kerry or whoever.

Then why did you bring it up as a counterpoint?

28 minutes ago, UncleTouchyFingers said:

The conversation is about...

Whatever comes up... like you mentioning Biden.

20 minutes ago, UncleTouchyFingers said:

 

Nowhere in that post is anyone on this board saying they should be investigated. They are simply showing you unethical and/or questionable business practices from your own beloved and squeaky clean side. 

Which we were already aware of. Unlike your side we understand self criticism. Think Franken.

42 minutes ago, UncleTouchyFingers said:

Rosenstein was appointed by Bush. 

 

EDIT:

 

Appointed by Trump. Dunno what I was thinking. 

And santa clause was married to Mrs  Santa Clause 

What does any of that have to do with the price of tea in China?

4 hours ago, mcambl61 said:

so, an investigation launched without evidence, do you think this is

an acceptable precedent?

If there were evidence at launch of investigation, what is the point of the investigation?

Investigations are launched to find wrongdoings, and if present evidence of that so the culprits can be brought to justice.

45 minutes ago, mikebike said:

Lying seems to b second nature to those in the sphere of influence... A feature, not a bug. Good thing Mueller will verify.

Mueller doesn't verify! He gets to give his opinion or opinions in a form of a report! The report thank god, goes through his boss and  than through the AG! Good thing Mr. Sessions resigned

2 hours ago, riclag said:

Mueller doesn't verify! He gets to give his opinion or opinions in a form of a report! The report thank god, goes through his boss and  than through the AG! Good thing Mr. Sessions resigned

Mueller doesn't verify?  On what do you base that ludicrous claim?

 

Also, remember you are supporting a man with diarrhea of the mouth; who makes repeated, blatantly false claims then, if called on them, states he was going on what some un-named person told him.  That's annoying when it's coming from a drunk in a bar, it's scary coming from the President.

10 hours ago, UncleTouchyFingers said:

 

Of course we were. I still vividly remember having air raid & nuke drills in elementary school where we had to hide under our desks and basically kiss our own asses goodbye. 

 

 

Ridiculous. 

 

I swear to god liberals are the biggest hypocrites I've ever witnessed. 

And I remember driving past protesters to do my job on the Peacekeeper ICBM test program.  I remember a lot else about the cold war and the possibility of a nuclear war to end civilization.  My number one reason to oppose a Trump presidency is his total unfitness for command of the world's greatest military and to be in charge of the nuclear codes. 

 

I can't understand why this isn't obvious to everyone.  Denial, I suppose.

 

BTW, there is nothing hypocritical about accepting that Russia is using cyber attacks, disinformation, and other asymmetrical warfare techniques to sow discord, disrupt elections and undermine trust in a free press and other institutions democracy depends on.  You don't see that as a form of conflict?

On 11/30/2018 at 4:25 AM, UncleTouchyFingers said:

 

See thats the thing, you guys dont even try to hide it. Look for a crime, any crime, and get him. You dont care that it has nothing to do with russian collusion. 

You mean like the Whitewater investigation?  The one that began as an investigation of a real estate deal, and ended with Kenneth Star given unlimited time and funds to find any dirt he could on the Clintons?

 

Mueller was tasked to "ensure a full and thorough investigation of the Russian government's efforts to interfere in the 2016 Presidential election" including "any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump" and "any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation".   https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/05/17/us/politics/document-Robert-Mueller-Special-Counsel-Russia.html

 

I don't have a problem with this scope.  There are ample reasons to suspect conflicts of interests and possible criminal activities between Trump and his inner circle and Russia. 

 

If there are actual financial conflict of interests between the President Trump's duty to act in the best interests of the United States and the Trump family's desire for lucrative business deals with the Russian government, then we should learn about it.

A post with unsubstantiated information and reply removed.  

 

12 hours ago, stevenl said:

If there were evidence at launch of investigation, what is the point of the investigation?

Investigations are launched to find wrongdoings, and if present evidence of that so the culprits can be brought to justice.

"evidence" based on an unverified "dossier" that was paid for by a Clinton operative, who has pleaded the fifth. if he has nothing to hide and is legit, why plead the fifth?

5 minutes ago, mcambl61 said:

"evidence" based on an unverified "dossier" that was paid for by a Clinton operative, who has pleaded the fifth. if he has nothing to hide and is legit, why plead the fifth?

Are you referring to this Christopher Steele:

The former MI6 officer Christopher Steele has won a legal battle in the United States against three Russian oligarchs who sued him over allegations made in his dossier about the Trump campaign and its links with Moscow.

The judge concluded that it was covered by the US first amendment, which protects free speech. He ruled that the oligarchs had failed to prove a key part of their case: that Steele knew that some information in the dossier was inaccurate, and had acted “with reckless disregard as to its falsity”.  (my underline).

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/aug/21/author-of-trump-russia-dossier-wins-libel-case-in-us-court-christopher-steele

The role of US intelligence agencies has been to gather evidence to confirm suspicions raised by the dossier to confirm its implications (Steele drew no conclusions from the dossier but presented it as an uncorroborated record).

 

7 hours ago, heybruce said:

I don't have a problem with this scope.

Of course you dont, not like you are an objective & unbiased observer here. 

 

This is the part of the scope that should be a problem:

 

7 hours ago, heybruce said:

"any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation"

 

That is in effect an unlimited, top-of-the-government investigation scope with unlimited funds. If they wanted to look for Russian interference then they should have limited the scope to that. 

Troll posts removed.  

 

Some more off topic trolling posts and the replies have been removed. 

1 hour ago, UncleTouchyFingers said:

Of course you dont, not like you are an objective & unbiased observer here. 

 

This is the part of the scope that should be a problem:

 

 

That is in effect an unlimited, top-of-the-government investigation scope with unlimited funds. If they wanted to look for Russian interference then they should have limited the scope to that. 

So what is your problem with an investigator looking if crimes have been committed?

1 hour ago, mcambl61 said:

"evidence" based on an unverified "dossier" that was paid for by a Clinton operative, who has pleaded the fifth. if he has nothing to hide and is legit, why plead the fifth?

Hmm, no. Evidence will be the result of the investigation, provided crimes have been committed of course.

2 hours ago, mcambl61 said:

"evidence" based on an unverified "dossier" that was paid for by a Clinton operative, who has pleaded the fifth. if he has nothing to hide and is legit, why plead the fifth?

The Steele dossier is only a small part of the evidence that justified the investigation.  Parts of the dossier have been verified, none of it has been disproven.

 

" For the first time, US investigators say they have corroborated some of the communications detailed in a 35-page dossier compiled by a former British intelligence agent, multiple current and former US law enforcement and intelligence officials tell CNN. As CNN first reported, then-President-elect Donald Trump and President Barack Obama were briefed on the existence of the dossier prior to Trump's inauguration. "   https://www.cnn.com/2017/02/10/politics/russia-dossier-update/index.html

 

" Overall, while some allegations of the dossier have been corroborated,^[19] others remain unverified.^[20] Some may require access to classified information for verification. "   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump–Russia_dossier

 

Of course no matter how often you explain this to a Trumpie, they refuse to accept the truth.

10 hours ago, heybruce said:

You mean like the Whitewater investigation?  The one that began as an investigation of a real estate deal, and ended with Kenneth Star given unlimited time and funds to find any dirt he could on the Clintons?

 

Mueller was tasked to "ensure a full and thorough investigation of the Russian government's efforts to interfere in the 2016 Presidential election" including "any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump" and "any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation".   https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/05/17/us/politics/document-Robert-Mueller-Special-Counsel-Russia.html

 

I don't have a problem with this scope.  There are ample reasons to suspect conflicts of interests and possible criminal activities between Trump and his inner circle and Russia. 

 

If there are actual financial conflict of interests between the President Trump's duty to act in the best interests of the United States and the Trump family's desire for lucrative business deals with the Russian government, then we should learn about it.

 

2 hours ago, UncleTouchyFingers said:

Of course you dont, not like you are an objective & unbiased observer here. 

 

This is the part of the scope that should be a problem:

 

 

That is in effect an unlimited, top-of-the-government investigation scope with unlimited funds. If they wanted to look for Russian interference then they should have limited the scope to that. 

Replying to edited, out of context snippets of my post is cowardly and shows your lack of depth.

 

Mueller was tasked with investigating Russian interference in the 2016 election and any other potentially illegal activities that he uncovers while he is at it.  In other words, if his investigation uncovers blatant conflicts of interests for administration officials due to their past dealings with Russia, he is tasked to investigate these. Only people who want Russian stooges in the White House would object to this.

4 hours ago, mcambl61 said:

"evidence" based on an unverified "dossier"

Can you give me Mueller's phone number? I need your direct connection to what is going on behind closed doors...

1 hour ago, heybruce said:

Replying to edited, out of context snippets of my post is cowardly and shows your lack of depth.

Just because I selected the relevant parts of your post doesn't mean Im editing anything, taking anything out of context, nor a coward. Quit trying to bend the forum rules and low key dog whistle to the mods. Thats cowardly. 

 

1 hour ago, heybruce said:

In other words, if his investigation uncovers blatant conflicts of interests for administration officials due to their past dealings with Russia, he is tasked to investigate these. Only people who want Russian stooges in the White House would object to this.

 

Weird. Which indictments so far have been due to their past dealings with Russia? All the ones Im seeing are from dealings with Ukraine, Taxes, and Lying to the FBI. So far absolutely nothing to do with Russia, Russian Interference, Collusion, Conspiracy & Administration officials. 

1 hour ago, heybruce said:

Of course no matter how often you explain this to a Trumpie, they refuse to accept the truth.

 

Yeah ok except for the part where you say "none of it has been disproven" like that matters at all, in any way, shape or form. That not how it works. You cant just write stuff and go "hurr durr if you dont like it then disprove it derp". 

 

Dont know how many times I have to explain it to a lib, but they keep on thinking this is their hold grail. 

26 minutes ago, UncleTouchyFingers said:

Just because I selected the relevant parts of your post doesn't mean Im editing anything, taking anything out of context, nor a coward. Quit trying to bend the forum rules and low key dog whistle to the mods. Thats cowardly. 

 

 

Weird. Which indictments so far have been due to their past dealings with Russia? All the ones Im seeing are from dealings with Ukraine, Taxes, and Lying to the FBI. So far absolutely nothing to do with Russia, Russian Interference, Collusion, Conspiracy & Administration officials. 

Administration officials indicted specifically for dealings with Russian:  George Papadopoulos.

 

Administration official that plead guilty for lying about contacts with Russia:  Gen. Michael Flynn.

 

Not an administration official but definitely close to Trump: Michael Cohen (that's what this topic is about).

 

Of course it is very likely there is much more to come.

28 minutes ago, UncleTouchyFingers said:

 

Yeah ok except for the part where you say "none of it has been disproven" like that matters at all, in any way, shape or form. That not how it works. You cant just write stuff and go "hurr durr if you dont like it then disprove it derp". 

 

Dont know how many times I have to explain it to a lib, but they keep on thinking this is their hold grail. 

Once again, you reply to an edited snippet, omitting the part about how parts of the dossier have been validated.  You may not think that is a cowardly and deliberately misleading reply, others would disagree.

5 hours ago, heybruce said:

The Steele dossier is only a small part of the evidence that justified the investigation.  Parts of the dossier have been verified, none of it has been disproven.

thank you for another condescending insult, 

 

what parts have been verified precisely? and how have they been "verified"?

 

so basically we are to believe that a unverified, unvetted dossier paid for by the opposing political party has to be taken as a legitimate source of unbiased, factual information with no ill intent and completely innocent of rumours and innuendos, then fed through the state dept and the FBI /DOJ to people sympathetic to this same political party. 

 

well of course, only the best intentions and integrity here. 

 

 

3 hours ago, heybruce said:

Of course it is very likely there is much more to come.

why is that? 

Posts in violation of fair use policy have been removed:

 

14) You will not post any copyrighted material except as fair use laws apply (as in the case of news articles). Please only post a link, the headline and the first three sentences.

 

I see a number of posts in which bickering is going on about replying to certain parts of a member's post and not quoting the entire post to which he is reply to, as long as the following forum rule is not violated, it is ok:

 

16) You will not make changes to quoted material from other members posts, except for purposes of shortening the quoted post. This cannot be done in such a manner that it alters the context of the original post.