The Robert Mueller Investigation

[Enchubben 5600]

28 minutes ago, bolverk said:

Putin clearly preferred Trump. How do we know this? Because he said so, plus the actions of the Russian troll farm. We also have news footage showing Russian officials celebrating and drinking champagne the day after Trump was elected. Moreover, that has been the official declaration by our intelligence agencies.

Why? Because Putin had a personal vendetta against Clinton from her time as Secretary of State.

Who would've been tougher? It's impossible to say for a certainty because that's a hypothetical that didn't happen in this timeline.

All we know is that Putin preferred Trump. That can no longer be a question.

Maybe he just hated Clintons like a lot of Americans. I think I could see the anti-globalist views aspect below vvv. I could also see the general discord angle; interesting.

[FondrenRoad 4378]

8 hours ago, TtomTerrific said:

this is solid gold.... 

 

you are EXACTLY why Trump won the primary and the General election... 

 

beautifully composed, dipshit. 

Oh yeah. It's someone else's fault that you voted for a racist shit bag. 

You didn't want to do it, but a random internet poster called you bad names, so you just had to prove him right. 

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

Wow Putin hated the Clintons. !!  How could that happen. Hillary and Bill Clinton are the kindest, warmest, bravest, most wonderful human beings I've ever known in my life.

Hillary and Bill Clinton are the kindest, warmest, bravest, most wonderful human beings I've ever known in my life.

Hillary and Bill Clinton are the kindest, warmest, bravest, most wonderful human beings I've ever known in my life.

Hillary and Bill Clinton are the kindest, warmest, bravest, most wonderful human beings I've ever known in my life.

Hillary and Bill Clinton are the kindest, warmest, bravest, most wonderful human beings I've ever known in my life.

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

1 minute ago, FondrenRoad said:

Oh yeah. It's someone else's fault that you voted for a racist shit bag. 

You didn't want to do it, but a random internet poster called you bad names, so you just had to prove him right. 

And you voluntarily voted for the most corrupt POS since Nixon, and would do it all over again...  You should stop while you're behind

[FondrenRoad 4378]

4 minutes ago, Enchubben said:

Maybe he just hated Clintons like a lot of Americans. I think I could see the anti-globalist views aspect below vvv. I could also see the general discord angle; interesting.

No Trump was and is incompetent.  And he is all about removing America from the global world order.  

Putin desires an isolationist America so that Russia can fill some of the vacuum. He also enjoys the fact that Trump is embarrassing to America.  If anything, Putin is probably upset by the fact that Trump is too incompetent so he can't accomplish any of his isolationist plans. 

[FondrenRoad 4378]

2 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

And you voluntarily voted for the most corrupt POS since Nixon, and would do it all over again...  You should stop while you're behind

No. That was you.  Trump is the most corrupt President in US history.  And you will absolutely do it again because you'll buy into whatever nonsense Fox spouts about the Dem candidate just like you did for Hillary. 

You ran away the last time you were depantsed over your belief in nonsensical Clinton conspiracies. Do we need to do this again?

Hillary owns your brain, man. You should go to therapy. Maybe get your Hillary tattoo removed too. 

[Longhornfan1024 1707]

6 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

No Trump was and is incompetent.  And he is all about removing America from the global world order.  

Putin desires an isolationist America so that Russia can fill some of the vacuum. He also enjoys the fact that Trump is embarrassing to America.  If anything, Putin is probably upset by the fact that Trump is too incompetent so he can't accomplish any of his isolationist plans. 

Also, Trump is his bitch.

[Brian Fantana 6866]

10 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

And you voluntarily voted for the most corrupt POS since Nixon, and would do it all over again...  You should stop while you're behind

Man you are generally a smart dude but you have Clinton brain worms like whoa. The cognitive dissonance is crazy.

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

Just now, FondrenRoad said:

No. That was you.  Trump is the most corrupt President in US history.  And you will absolutely do it again because you'll buy into whatever nonsense Fox spouts about the Dem candidate just like you did for Hillary. 

You ran away the last time you were depantsed over your belief in nonsensical Clinton conspiracies. Do we need to do this again?

Hillary owns your brain, man. You should go to therapy. Maybe get your Hillary tattoo removed too. 

Nah she owns the dollars she scammed thru her time in Washington.  She owns the knowledge that she tried to Destroy anyone who got in her way including the women her hatband assaulted (who she allegedly fought for her entire career). 

You'd vote for her again, whereas I'll never vote for Trump again, he did has job. He kept her out of the Oval office.

[bolverk 30323]

1 minute ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

You'd vote for her again, whereas I'll never vote for Trump again, he did has job. He kept her out of the Oval office.

2

Then stop defending him by deflecting criticism. If you're not going to vote for the guy again, what are you going to do to oppose the son of a bitch?

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

Just now, Brian Fantana said:

Man you are generally a smart dude but you have Clinton brain worms like whoa. The cognitive dissonance is crazy.

Oh I do have a huge issue with them.  They were everything wrong with our political system and people like that shouldn't be allowed to go that far.  That's my issue.  They used the system brilliantly to scam a nation. There's legal and right, and there's legal and wrong. They were smart enough to slither thru the halls of gov't to get their way. 

The DNC doubled down on her and lost any sense of moral high ground with her nomination. 

Bill was a scum morally, but I give him marks as probably wanting to do the right thing. Hillary was a modern day Lucrecia Borgia

[jimmyjazz 47196]

I'd like to ask a very simple question that will hopefully help people keep their eye on the ball:

What is the most obvious piece of evidence regarding potential collusion between the Trump campaign and Russians in Trump's effort to win the election?

I would think it would be the email chain inexplicably released by Junior showing communications with Rob Goldstone in which it was revealed that a Russian government prosecutor was interested in providing damaging information on Hillary Clinton.  They ultimately decide to set up a meeting in Trump Tower with Russian attorney Natalia Veselnitskaya, who was in New York to broker a revocation of the Magnitsky Act and Russia's subsequent retaliatory block on adoption of Russian children.  The purpose of this hastily scheduled additional meeting, allegedly attended by Trump Campaign Chairman Paul Manafort and Ivanka Trump's husband Jared Kushner, was clearly distinct from the original reason for Veselnitskaya's trip, regardless of Trump's subsequent claims that the meeting was "about adoptions".

Current right-wing talking points, fueled by POTUS himself, would have us believe the investigation should never have occurred because there was no evidence pointing towards Trump or his campaign's collusion with Russians to sway the election.  I have always believed that the Trump Tower meeting with Veselnitskaya was sufficient to open the investigation, regardless of whether conspiracy was ultimately revealed by Mueller.  Law enforcement routinely launches investigations based on what is essentially a "where there's smoke, there's fire" line of thought.  I see this as being no different.

Is there any evidence more damning than this?  If so, what is it?

 

DTJ & Rob Goldstone

 

Edited April 12, 2019 by jimmyjazz

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

2 minutes ago, bolverk said:

Then stop defending him by deflecting criticism. If you're not going to vote for the guy again, what are you going to do to oppose the son of a bitch?

What criticism am I deflecting ?  I don't think I've defended the guy.  

By voting for probably anyone who runs against him in the general. I know I know I'm just lying...

[David Dennison 19539]

3 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

Oh I do have a huge issue with them.  They were everything wrong with our political system and people like that shouldn't be allowed to go that far.  That's my issue.  They used the system brilliantly to scam a nation. There's legal and right, and there's legal and wrong. They were smart enough to slither thru the halls of gov't to get their way. 

The DNC doubled down on her and lost any sense of moral high ground with her nomination. 

Bill was a scum morally, but I give him marks as probably wanting to do the right thing. Hillary was a modern day Lucrecia Borgia

You support Donald Trump.

[DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt 12301]

HRC is/was a power hungry, shrewd politician that would do whatever was necessary to continue her political ascendency. Actively working to destroy her husband’s accusers while pretending to espouse woman’s rights is perfectly hypocritical/classic HRC.

BUT is @Onboard 2.0 suggesting Donald Fucking Trump owns some moral high ground, on any level, with anyone?

He’s a disgusting piece of human shit that is actively trying to destroy the fiber of America, and yet you think he’s done his job. That you think something was won with him is our President speaks volumes as to your obsession with HRC. We all lost, but you’re too dense to see it.

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

Just now, DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt said:

HRC is/was a power hungry, shrewd politician that would do whatever was necessary to continue her political ascendency. Actively working to destroy her husband’s accusers while pretending to espouse woman’s rights is perfectly hypocritical/classic HRC.

BUT is @Onboard 2.0 suggesting Donald Fucking Trump owns some moral high ground, on any level, with anyone?

He’s a disgusting piece of human shit that is actively trying to destroy the fiber of America, and yet you think he’s done his job. That you think something was won with him is our President speaks volumes as to your obsession with HRC. We all lost, but you’re too dense to see it.

Not at all. The Clintons did it for 2 decades in alleged service of the country, that's a special kind of scum.

[David Dennison 19539]

3 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

Not at all. The Clintons did it for 2 decades in alleged service of the country, that's a special kind of scum.

You support Donald Trump.

[DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt 12301]

6 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

Not at all. The Clintons did it for 2 decades in alleged service of the country, that's a special kind of scum.

Yeah, that Clinton presidency was just AWFUL! But to actually address what you’re saying (something you can’t do), are you of the belief Trump is faithfully serving this country?

Edited April 12, 2019 by DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt

[atomheartbevo 90646]

 

[FondrenRoad 4378]

28 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

Nah she owns the dollars she scammed thru her time in Washington.  She owns the knowledge that she tried to Destroy anyone who got in her way including the women her hatband assaulted (who she allegedly fought for her entire career). 

You'd vote for her again, whereas I'll never vote for Trump again, he did has job. He kept her out of the Oval office.

Yeah, her hatband is a killer. 

I'd certainly vote for her over Trump again. But then I don't believe in disproven conspiracy theories like you do. 

And just wait, you will absolutely vote for Trump again. As the Dem winner becomes clearer, Fox will drum up the hate and conspiracies and you will fall right in line again. 

[GW Hayduke 1957]

13 minutes ago, DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt said:

HRC is/was a power hungry, shrewd politician that would do whatever was necessary to continue her political ascendency. Actively working to destroy her husband’s accusers while pretending to espouse woman’s rights is perfectly hypocritical/classic HRC.

BUT is @Onboard 2.0 suggesting Donald Fucking Trump owns some moral high ground, on any level, with anyone?

He’s a disgusting piece of human shit that is actively trying to destroy the fiber of America, and yet you think he’s done his job. That you think something was won with him is our President speaks volumes as to your obsession with HRC. We all lost, but you’re too dense to see it.

Not everyone lost with Trump.

Putin won. White nationalism won. An expanding wealth division won. The top 2% won. Steel workers won. Everyone else lost even if they’ve chosen to identify themselves as a trump supporter. 

[SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3871]

52 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

 I'll never vote for Trump again,

Wait until someone says something mean to you again. Then you’ll just have to. 

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

6 minutes ago, SuingToGetAMessageBoard? said:

Wait until someone says something mean to you again. Then you’ll just have to. 

quite the hot take ya got there Sparky

Edited April 12, 2019 by Onboard 2.0

[bolverk 30323]

54 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

What criticism am I deflecting ?  I don't think I've defended the guy.  

By voting for probably anyone who runs against him in the general. I know I know I'm just lying...

When have you ever even addressed the topic of this thread? You know, the investigation.

I can't think of anything you've contributed to this discussion other than to harp on the Clintons, which I view as the very definition of deflection.

[retread 2951]

What do you guys think of a random thoughts or general discussion thread in CR? There are legit discussions to be had in this and the Trump thread, but they often get derailed for multiple pages.

Edited April 12, 2019 by retread

[DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt 12301]

14 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

quite the hot take ya got there Sparky

will you answer my question:

Is Donald Trump faithfully serving this country?

Look, when the history books have been written, this Presidency will go down as one of the darkest stains in our country's history...and you'll be sitting on your rocker saying 'Thank GOD that happened! Whew!'

[jimmyjazz 47196]

3 minutes ago, retread said:

What do you guys think of a random thoughts or general discussioni thread in CR? There are legit discussions to be had in this and the Trump thread, but they often get derailed for multiple pages.

It wouldn't work.  Onboard and his ilk can't (or more correctly won't) stop shit-posting on threads with legitimate, focused topics, and people (including myself at times) will take the bait.

It's part of the general strategy:  deflect, deny, obfuscate.  

[Hornius Emeritus 12804]

1 hour ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

Not at all. The Clintons did it for 2 decades in alleged service of the country, that's a special kind of scum.

 

This is the Robert Mueller thread.  Did Robert Mueller investigate the Clintons?  No.  So why are babbling ON AND ON AND ON about the Clintons, whom Robert Mueller did NOT investigate? 

[Red Five 41738]

What do you guys think of a random thoughts or general discussion thread in CR? There are legit discussions to be had in this and the Trump thread, but they often get derailed for multiple pages.

Can we lock some of our more um challenged posters in that one thread?

[Biff Tannen 46165]

3 hours ago, Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand said:

Of course the party that lectured the world about personal responsibility like some self-appointed, folksy life coach is now the party of Look What You *buuurp* Made Me Do!

[WhatTheBuck 28929]

3 hours ago, Enchubben said:

Honest unbiased question: Outside of trump actual involvement and the investigation, between Hillary and Trump, which candidate would Russia have preferred win and why? Which would have been/is tougher on russia and their interests?

Putin told us in Helsinki that he wanted Trump to win. It's no surprise since Trump has the emotional development of a toddler and is easy to manipulate with flattery and the prospect of personal enrichment. 

[WhatTheBuck 28929]

1 hour ago, Hornius Emeritus said:

This is the Robert Mueller thread.  Did Robert Mueller investigate the Clintons?  No.  So why are babbling ON AND ON AND ON about the Clintons, whom Robert Mueller did NOT investigate? 

To bait you into helping to derail the thread by responding to trolls. 

[The Royal We 3100]

I respect you guys that post links to facts and information that is readily available in the public space, but no amount of repeatedly posting this information can overcome the Hannityitis that a handful of shitposters suffer from.  The back and forth has made this thread hard to follow for actual information.

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

Woooooooo Weeeeee touched a nerve up in here.  

[Cheeseweasel 26439]

1 hour ago, The Royal We said:

I respect you guys that post links to facts and information that is readily available in the public space, but no amount of repeatedly posting this information can overcome the Hannityitis that a handful of shitposters suffer from.  The back and forth has made this thread hard to follow for actual information.

But Trumpobamaclinton!

[GRHorn 105]

4 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:

I'd like to ask a very simple question that will hopefully help people keep their eye on the ball:

What is the most obvious piece of evidence regarding potential collusion between the Trump campaign and Russians in Trump's effort to win the election?

I would think it would be the email chain inexplicably released by Junior showing communications with Rob Goldstone in which it was revealed that a Russian government prosecutor was interested in providing damaging information on Hillary Clinton.  They ultimately decide to set up a meeting in Trump Tower with Russian attorney Natalia Veselnitskaya, who was in New York to broker a revocation of the Magnitsky Act and Russia's subsequent retaliatory block on adoption of Russian children.  The purpose of this hastily scheduled additional meeting, allegedly attended by Trump Campaign Chairman Paul Manafort and Ivanka Trump's husband Jared Kushner, was clearly distinct from the original reason for Veselnitskaya's trip, regardless of Trump's subsequent claims that the meeting was "about adoptions".

Current right-wing talking points, fueled by POTUS himself, would have us believe the investigation should never have occurred because there was no evidence pointing towards Trump or his campaign's collusion with Russians to sway the election.  I have always believed that the Trump Tower meeting with Veselnitskaya was sufficient to open the investigation, regardless of whether conspiracy was ultimately revealed by Mueller.  Law enforcement routinely launches investigations based on what is essentially a "where there's smoke, there's fire" line of thought.  I see this as being no different.

Is there any evidence more damning than this?  If so, what is it?

 

DTJ & Rob Goldstone

 

“The Special Counsel's investigation did not find that the Trump campaign or anyone associated with it conspired or coordinated with Russia in its efforts to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election.”

Let it go.

1 hour ago, The Royal We said:

I respect you guys that post links to facts and information that is readily available in the public space, but no amount of repeatedly posting this information can overcome the Hannityitis that a handful of shitposters suffer from.  The back and forth has made this thread hard to follow for actual information.

The most relevant info today was posted above from the WSJ. 

14 hours ago, NaTeWHO said:

Am I supposed to love or hate Rod Rosenstein? I never know when this shit depends on the wind.

Here are some of his quotes from the article.

WSJ Link

Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein defended the Justice Department’s handling of the special counsel’s still-secret report, saying Attorney General William Barr is “being as forthcoming as he can” about his process for redacting and releasing the roughly 400-page document.

"He’s being as forthcoming as he can, and so this notion that he’s trying to mislead people, I think is just completely bizarre,” Mr. Rosenstein said.

“It would be one thing if you put out a letter and said, ‘I’m not going to give you the report,’ ” Mr. Rosenstein said. “What he said is, ‘Look, it’s going to take a while to process the report. In the meantime, people really want to know what’s in it. I’m going to give you the top-line conclusions.’ That’s all he was trying to do.”

I guess we'll find out.

Rosenstein defending Barr.  

As a side note, Rosenstein knows what’s in the report. He was cited as being consulted re: any obstruction charges. Y’all waiting for any big gotcha that is not in public sphere are grasping at straws. You’ve already wasted two years of your life tracking this. Don’t waste any more. Move on. 

[The Royal We 3100]

You might be right GR, but Barr's actions in his summary/not a summary, slow rolling the release of a redacted report, "spying" comments, etc. don't give me the same confidence as they seem to give you.  Trump firing up the Mueller attack machine again after apparently reviewing the report also don't indicate it's a "total exoneration" either. 

But sure, those of us that want to see more of the actual report before reaching a conclusion are the ones grasping at straws here.

[jimmyjazz 47196]

2 minutes ago, GRHorn said:

“The Special Counsel's investigation did not find that the Trump campaign or anyone associated with it conspired or coordinated with Russia in its efforts to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election.”

Let it go.

Thanks for missing the entire point of the question.  No, I am not going to "let it go".  Conspiracy (as opposed to collusion) is a legal standard, and the question was about collusion.  Furthermore, I am asking for open evidence of collusion, of which I provided some.  If you don't think that meeting was enough of a smoking (smocking) gun to warrant further investigation, then you are a Trumpkin.  Congratulations.

[triplehorn 2664]

WaPo the Russian effort to target Bernie supporters in 2016 was greater than previously known:

There's a bit of a build-up going on in the news around some of these stories that have been out there.  It seems there's the potential to be prepping for more revelations.

[GRHorn 105]

13 minutes ago, The Royal We said:

You might be right GR, but Barr's actions in his summary/not a summary, slow rolling the release of a redacted report, "spying" comments, etc. don't give me the same confidence as they seem to give you.  Trump firing up the Mueller attack machine again after apparently reviewing the report also don't indicate it's a "total exoneration" either. 

But sure, those of us that want to see more of the actual report before reaching a conclusion are the ones grasping at straws here.

I think you’re mistaken if you believe the Attorney General, with the assistance of the Blessed Rod Rosenstein, would release any summary of top line conclusions that differ materially from what’s in a report that is going to be released eventually. JMO. 

6 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Thanks for missing the entire point of the question.  No, I am not going to "let it go".  Conspiracy (as opposed to collusion) is a legal standard, and the question was about collusion.  Furthermore, I am asking for open evidence of collusion, of which I provided some.  If you don't think that meeting was enough of a smoking (smocking) gun to warrant further investigation, then you are a Trumpkin.  Congratulations.

Is coordination as stated in the Barr letter not collusion? Why are you splitting hairs about something that was investigated exhaustively for almost 2 years?!  You do need to let it go. 

For all the talk about Russia wanting Trump, as much as anything they want to “sow discord” in our country. People who went on and on about this for 2 years and still can’t admit they were wrong like Rachel Maddow are the biggest Russian stooges around. 

[jimmyjazz 47196]

1 minute ago, GRHorn said:

I think you’re mistaken if you believe the Attorney General, with the assistance of the Blessed Rod Rosenstein, would release any summary of top line conclusions that differ materially from what’s in a report that is going to be released eventually. JMO. 

Is coordination as stated in the Barr letter not collusion? Why are you splitting hairs about something that was investigated exhaustively for almost 2 years?!  You do need to let it go. 

For all the talk about Russia wanting Trump, as much as anything they want to “sow discord” in our country. People who went on and on about this for 2 years and still can’t admit they were wrong like Rachel Maddow are the biggest Russian stooges around. 

You have a serious problem comprehending the written word.  My post was CLEARLY about the impetus for the investigation, something that your boy Don is falsely characterizing as nonexistent.  I am asking what information existed in spring 2017 that would warrant such an investigation.

Try to stay on topic.  Good luck with that.

[GW Hayduke 1957]

3 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Thanks for missing the entire point of the question.  No, I am not going to "let it go".  Conspiracy (as opposed to collusion) is a legal standard, and the question was about collusion.  Furthermore, I am asking for open evidence of collusion, of which I provided some.  If you don't think that meeting was enough of a smoking (smocking) gun to warrant further investigation, then you are a Trumpkin.  Congratulations.

Lots of folks don’t understand or refuse to accept that the “beyond a reasonable doubt” evidentiary standard used in Barr’s letter allows for the existence of a lot of evidence of inappropriate collusion. Below is a quick list stuff I can think of off the top of my head. 

- Kushner’s efforts to make a backchannel at Russian govt buildings

- Secret Trump tower deal in Moscow

- GOP platform changes related to Ukraine

- Firing fbi Director cause of russia thing

- Campaign manager providing polling data to russia

- Russian money in inauguration funds

- Russian/suadi money in Trump, Kush, and Ivanka real estate projects

- Flynn’s secret negotiations with Russian ambassador concerning sanctions

- Stone coordination with Assange, Russian cutout.

[The Royal We 3100]

Again, then why are they slow rolling the release, not seeking judicial approval to release Grand Jury testimony, continuing to attack Mueller, etc.?  If it was truly a "total exoneration" then why are they so reluctant to release the report?  And why the leaks from Mueller's otherwise leak-proof team that claim Barr misrepresented the contents of the report?

Sorry/not sorry I'm taking not the word of a seemingly conflicted Barr as gospel as you are choosing to do.

[David Dennison 19539]

35 minutes ago, GRHorn said:

“The Special Counsel's investigation did not find that the Trump campaign or anyone associated with it conspired or coordinated with Russia in its efforts to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election.”

Let it go.

The most relevant info today was posted above from the WSJ. 

Rosenstein defending Barr.  

As a side note, Rosenstein knows what’s in the report. He was cited as being consulted re: any obstruction charges. Y’all waiting for any big gotcha that is not in public sphere are grasping at straws. You’ve already wasted two years of your life tracking this. Don’t waste any more. Move on. 

Let's see the report first.

[jimmyjazz 47196]

5 minutes ago, GW Hayduke said:

Lots of folks don’t understand or refuse to accept that the “beyond a reasonable doubt” evidentiary standard used in Barr’s letter allows for the existence of a lot of evidence of inappropriate collusion. Below is a quick list stuff I can think of off the top of my head. 

- Kushner’s efforts to make a backchannel at Russian govt buildings

- Secret Trump tower deal in Moscow

- GOP platform changes related to Ukraine

- Firing fbi Director cause of russia thing

- Campaign manager providing polling data to russia

- Russian money in inauguration funds

- Russian/suadi money in Trump, Kush, and Ivanka real estate projects

- Flynn’s secret negotiations with Russian ambassador concerning sanctions

- Stone coordination with Assange, Russian cutout.

Good list.  How many of those were apparent prior to the opening of the investigation in spring 2017?

[GW Hayduke 1957]

5 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Good list.  How many of those were apparent prior to the opening of the investigation in spring 2017?

All of them. Comey was fired that spring and then the Mueller investigation started

[Anastasis 23718]

12 minutes ago, GW Hayduke said:

Lots of folks don’t understand or refuse to accept that the “beyond a reasonable doubt” evidentiary standard used in Barr’s letter...

Where did barr explicitly invoke that standard in his letter?

[GRHorn 105]

6 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

You have a serious problem comprehending the written word.  My post was CLEARLY about the impetus for the investigation, something that your boy Don is falsely characterizing as nonexistent.  I am asking what information existed in spring 2017 that would warrant such an investigation.

Try to stay on topic.  Good luck with that.

I'd like to ask a very simple question that will hopefully help people keep their eye on the ball:

What is the most obvious piece of evidence regarding potential collusion between the Trump campaign and Russians in Trump's effort to win the election?

 

The above is the beginning of your initial post. The bolded emphasis was yours, thus my focus.

The impetus for the investigation is irrelevant. It’s been investigated. You want people to keep their  eye on the ball, but Mueller took the ball and went home. You should do the same.

Your dinner is about ready. 

[David Dennison 19539]

Just now, GRHorn said:

I'd like to ask a very simple question that will hopefully help people keep their eye on the ball:

What is the most obvious piece of evidence regarding potential collusion between the Trump campaign and Russians in Trump's effort to win the election?

The above is the beginning of your initial post. The bolded emphasis was yours, thus my focus.

The impetus for the investigation is irrelevant. It’s been investigated. You want people to keep their  eye on the ball, but Mueller took the ball and went home. You should do the same.

Your dinner is about ready. 

You won't know the answer until you read the report.

[Gatorubet 30716]

52 minutes ago, GRHorn said:

As a side note, Rosenstein knows what’s in the report. He was cited as being consulted re: any obstruction charges. Y’all waiting for any big gotcha that is not in public sphere are grasping at straws. You’ve already wasted two years of your life tracking this. Don’t waste any more. Move on. 

Your piece of shit President denies that Russia was interfering with our election, and has thwarted attempts by our intelligence community and Congress to defend and prevent that interference.   All while he blows Putin, hurts NATO, and advances Russian foreign policy interests.

Which is why Trumpkins are traitors to their country, because they prefer lib tears to the protection of the most basic rights of our country's citizens.

As to the Mueller report, it said that there was no proof of collusion, but that there was evidence of obstruction.   Which is why you tards saying that the report exonerated Trump is like hearing that a grand jury said that there was no evidence of murder, but evidence of rape, so we need to close the file....cause 'no murder.'    Now, folks with a working brain know that when there is proof of obstruction of justice ALL of that information should be  given in its entirety to Congress, as obstruction can in fact be an impeachable offense, Barr's personal opinion notwithstanding.

So what you Trumpkins want is to: 1) help support Trump's denial of the attack on our country by Russia, and 2) to withhold evidence of obstruction in the Mueller report from the very institution that is constitutionally tasked with oversight of the executive office.  

Good luck with that.   Problem is, there are enough non-traitors remaining to make it a game.  Who will win - well - that remains to be seen.

Now, you can respond  with 'but Obama' all you want, but first you need to address why Trump's refusal to admit that Russia is attacking us is not a big deal, and why (other than partisan team politics) obstruction about the investigation of Russia's attempts to influence our elections is not as important a matter as lying about blow jobs.  Because we know you think that is worthy of impeachment proceedings. 

 

 

Edited April 12, 2019 by Gatorubet