Damn.....Good Lord Man.......You believe that the Steele dossier was NOT part of the Russia election interference investigation?
I know! Unreal.
Damn.....Good Lord Man.......You believe that the Steele dossier was NOT part of the Russia election interference investigation?
I've already said that neither side won anything today. Mueller stuck to his word and spoke only to the report. I'm responding to people asking questions about why he didn't investigate this or that when those were not within the scope. I'm responding to questions about who did what when it's in the report. I'm not taking the side that the Dems got a victory or that the GOP got a victory. I'm taking the side that no one won anything. All we know now that some might not have known before is that Mueller is true to his word.hey @mule_eer "No collusion" "No obstruction" and Mueller can't explain or remember enough from his own report to prove otherwise.
This was a disaster (his testimony) and while I admire your spin on it, @Pospecteer called it when said you're just putting lipstick on a pig.
Ain't it pretty?
![]()
I give up......it's useless.
But Mueller got full cooperation from the WH. It's Mueller's fault that it took a year to get answers from the WH. That's how I'm reading your comment.
The crimes Manafort was charged with happened prior to working for Trump. Not in his purview but he prosecuted anyway. Why ? Orange man bad.Care to point out what's wrong with my logic? I'm responding to a question about why Mueller didn't investigate HRC's possible interactions with the Russians. We can all quote Mueller by now on this, "It wasn't in my purview."
I've already said that neither side won anything today. Mueller stuck to his word and spoke only to the report. I'm responding to people asking questions about why he didn't investigate this or that when those were not within the scope. I'm responding to questions about who did what when it's in the report. I'm not taking the side that the Dems got a victory or that the GOP got a victory. I'm taking the side that no one won anything. All we know now that some might not have known before is that Mueller is true to his word.
It's an honest question.
The crimes Manafort was charged with happened prior to working for Trump. Not in his purview but he prosecuted anyway. Why ? Orange man bad.
If he's a political hack, wouldn't he have gifted the Dems a victory by making statements to help them out?All we know now that some may not have known before is Mueller is a doddering old political hack.
Rick Gates. That was about Ukraine. Not in his purview.If he's a political hack, wouldn't he have gifted the Dems a victory by making statements to help them out?
It's an honest question.
If he's a political hack, wouldn't he have gifted the Dems a victory by making statements to help them out?
I felt bad for Mueller......even the Deomrats were getting a little annoyed with him. One of the Dems tried ....Oh.....the Bushes love Mueller......trick. That Dem must not have known that ALL the Bushes HATE Donald Trump.If he's a political hack, wouldn't he have gifted the Dems a victory by making statements to help them out?
Rick Gates worked with a now former Ukranian President who lives in exile in ... Russia. He also worked with Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska. So, was it really limited to Ukraine?Rick Gates. That was about Ukraine. Not in his purview.
I felt bad for Mueller too, mainly because both sides were trying to get him to do something he said he wouldn't, talk off the report. I think what I gleaned from the testimony that I heard is that he wasn't interested in being a political stooge. He did what he said he would. It wasn't pretty, and I'm not trying to give him style points. I do think that shows he's a man of his word.I felt bad for Mueller......even the Deomrats were getting a little annoyed with him. One of the Dems tried ....Oh.....the Bushes love Mueller......trick. That Dem must not have known that ALL the Bushes HATE Donald Trump.
If he's a political hack, wouldn't he have gifted the Dems a victory by making statements to help them out?
Rick Gates worked with a now former Ukranian President who lives in exile in ... Russia. He also worked with Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska. So, was it really limited to Ukraine?
Head up a team of folks writing 450 pages of legalese and see if you can quote chapter and verse a few months later.Mueller was just the face of this witch hunt....nothing more. He didn't know what was in the report.
I felt bad for Mueller too, mainly because both sides were trying to get him to do something he said he wouldn't, talk off the report. I think what I gleaned from the testimony that I heard is that he wasn't interested in being a political stooge. He did what he said he would. It wasn't pretty, and I'm not trying to give him style points. I do think that shows he's a man of his word.
I know what you have been told. Ukraine. You will be hearing more about that country in the near future. The Russia connection leads right back to the Clinton Foundation.
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/09/...-ukraine-joe-biden-son-hunter-biden-ties.html
Why do you have to denigrate someone as politically motivated? Mueller could write his ticket politically if he played ball with either side. He didn't make this political, just like he told us when the report came out. Not everyone sees things only through a political lens. Some people feel like their jobs are to avoid those biases. I see Mueller as one of those people. I think his career prior to becoming SC backs that up. I see his report and his testimony as proof that he has not changed his stance on that.I bet the Dems are pissed at him. They spent a lot of time with that Dude rehearsing how to answer questions, and when the lights came on he got stage fright!
Sorry, I can't really get into that. We didn't rehearse that answer.
![]()
Head up a team of folks writing 450 pages of legalese and see if you can quote chapter and verse a few months later.
Go watch the testimony. You are starting to sound like a nutjob. He couldn't quote anything. He came off as someone who Weisman had his hand up his butt working him like a puppet the past two years.Head up a team of folks writing 450 pages of legalese and see if you can quote chapter and verse a few months later.
I wouldn't be surprised if it did. One of many reasons HRC was a bad candidate from day 1. Investigate it, find evidence, and charge her. I'll support that.I know what you have been told. Ukraine. You will be hearing more about that country in the near future. The Russia connection leads right back to the Clinton Foundation.
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/09/...-ukraine-joe-biden-son-hunter-biden-ties.html
Head up a team of folks writing 450 pages of legalese and see if you can quote chapter and verse a few months later.
Now go watch the testimony so you can learn how it's all connected.I wouldn't be surprised if it did. One of many reasons HRC was a bad candidate from day 1. Investigate it, find evidence, and charge her. I'll support that.
Again, if this testimony was politically motivated, why the whiff? Why no charges? Mueller was sticking to the report, and he didn't remember the exact page number of each reference brought up by the Congressmen. That's hardly a negative.Go watch the testimony. You are starting to sound like a nutjob. He couldn't quote anything. He came off as someone Weisman had his hand up his butt working him like a puppet the past two years.
Why do you have to denigrate someone as politically motivated? Mueller could write his ticket politically if he played ball with either side. He didn't make this political, just like he told us when the report came out. Not everyone sees things only through a political lens. Some people feel like their jobs are to avoid those biases. I see Mueller as one of those people. I think his career prior to becoming SC backs that up. I see his report and his testimony as proof that he has not changed his stance on that.
Obviously, we disagree on the scope, although I think it's pretty clear. As I've said numerous times, you don't need a SC to investigate HRC. Have at it. I'm not going to say that she or her campaign are clean. I wouldn't be shocked if they weren't.I think he knew before he even got started there was no collusion and about six months into his meaningless investigation he knew there was no obstruction. He tried to justify his existence by going after Manafort, and those Russian bots but to me his evidence of not being legitimate is based on the fact he never even so much as interviewed Hillary or anyone in the DNC about what if any contacts they had with Russians.
Contrary to your claims, that was within the scope of his investigation, especially if all that other stuff he got into had nothing to do with any Collusion. This man was simply a pawn in a giant scheme to get rid of Trump. We'll learn about it all in the not too distant future.
You haven't watched the entire thing. So your credibility is taking a beating right now. Kind of like me jumping into a game of thrones thread without ever watching one episode. Go microwave some popcorn and watch.Again, if this testimony was politically motivated, why the whiff? Why no charges? Mueller was sticking to the report, and he didn't remember the exact page number of each reference brought up by the Congressmen. That's hardly a negative.
Obviously, we disagree on the scope, although I think it's pretty clear. As I've said numerous times, you don't need a SC to investigate HRC. Have at it. I'm not going to say that she or her campaign are clean. I wouldn't be shocked if they weren't.