TrumPutinGate

#23,127
#23,127
evillawyer said:
Let's see what happens here. The SC's statement was quite circumspect. Certainly, not a full-throated denial. The BuzzFeed article had started to move some in Congress to want to move things forward before Mueller completed his work. Let's tag this and come back in 6 months and see just what the inaccuracy was. BuzzFeed still stands by it's reporting.
Click to expand...

There's my boy. Looking at the bright side. You BB and BuzzFeed are the only ones standing by the story. I admire your loyalty the cause.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ajvol01, Orange_Vol1321 and NorthDallas40
#23,128
#23,128
Orange_Vol1321 said:
Correct, but the Clinton machine has alot of power. There wasn't any evidence to wiretap Trump.
Click to expand...

Maybe not, but I thought we were promised by Honest Don that a real revelation was forthcoming with a release of unredacted FISA documents.

I'm patient. But, again, I might have missed it.
 
#23,130
#23,130
Stew Cook said:
FISA is not a singular judge, nor a Leftist panel of judges.
Click to expand...

correct.

Since Mueller didn't deny that the FBI was told by Orr prior to seeking the first authorization that the dossier they were using was 1) unverified, 2) the product of opposition research from the person trying to beat the subject of the dossier and 3) produced by a person determined to see that Trump would never, ever be president yet they chose to omit all of this from the application - I guess we know that's all true.

(that's what I learned in this thread vis a vis Muelller statements)
 
#23,132
#23,132
evillawyer said:
Let's see what happens here. The SC's statement was quite circumspect. Certainly, not a full-throated denial. The BuzzFeed article had started to move some in Congress to want to move things forward before Mueller completed his work. Let's tag this and come back in 6 months and see just what the inaccuracy was. BuzzFeed still stands by it's reporting.
Click to expand...
Tagged for future bump.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Orange_Vol1321
#23,133
#23,133
volinbham said:
correct.

Since Mueller didn't deny that the FBI was told by Orr prior to seeking the first authorization that the dossier they were using was 1) unverified, 2) the product of opposition research from the person trying to beat the subject of the dossier and 3) produced by a person determined to see that Trump would never, ever be president yet they chose to omit all of this from the application - I guess we know that's all true.

(that's what I learned in this thread vis a vis Muelller statements)
Click to expand...


That sounds right, but without googling, I believe the practice of naming any names isn't part of the FISA process.
 
#23,134
#23,134
0nelilreb said:
and If Mueller doesn’t find that he colluded with Russia ? Since you have the cart in front of the horse now , what will you do then ? Say Mueller didn’t do his job , was tampered with , of course he didn’t because he is after all a Republican ? What’s going to be your fall back excuse if it does pan out like you want it to since you have already determined guilt ?
Click to expand...
I only think he's guilty just as with OJ. I fully understand that he may not be proven guilty (just as with OJ) and will even acknowledge the one in a thousand possibility that he is not personally guilty of collusion.
Worst case scenario, he remains president through the end of his term.
I've said multiple times I will accept Mueller's findings, whatever they may be; and tip my hat to him for a job well done. It's you guys that are unwilling to make that claim. You are all desperately holding on to the "Mueller is part of the deep state, witch hunt, beyond the scope of the investigation" cards because you realize the high probability of incriminating findings of illegalities.
 
#23,135
#23,135
Stew Cook said:
That sounds right, but without googling, I believe the practice of naming any names isn't part of the FISA process.
Click to expand...

naming names does include telling the court that a sizable chunk of your evidence was unverified, paid for as opposition research and produced by someone who was trying to stop the subject of the surveillance. Worse, reporting indicates that they used the dossier itself as it appeared in reporting as verification of the dossier.

There's no defendable reason to omit that information. Orr's testimony shows this was all known prior to the first application.

Regardless of your feelings about Trump I don't see how anyone thinks this is okay.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Orange_Vol1321
#23,136
#23,136
volinbham said:
naming names does include telling the court that a sizable chunk of your evidence was unverified, paid for as opposition research and produced by someone who was trying to stop the subject of the surveillance.

There's no defendable reason to omit that information. Orr's testimony shows this was all known prior to the first application.
Click to expand...

It was also his job, but hell, I don't know what's in there either.
 
#23,138
#23,138
luthervol said:
I only think he's guilty just as with OJ. I fully understand that he may not be proven guilty (just as with OJ) and will even acknowledge the one in a thousand possibility that he is not personally guilty of collusion.
Worst case scenario, he remains president through the end of his term.
I've said multiple times I will accept Mueller's findings, whatever they may be; and tip my hat to him for a job well done. It's you guys that are unwilling to make that claim. You are all desperately holding on to the "Mueller is part of the deep state, witch hunt, beyond the scope of the investigation" cards because you realize the high probability of incriminating findings of illegalities.
Click to expand...
Tip your hat to a made up BS story?
 
#23,139
#23,139
Orange_Vol1321 said:


Click to expand...


Without a doubt, BuzzFeed got something wrong. Mueller though is not in the business of correcting inaccurate reporting. He's not a media watchdog afterall. There were real political effects starting to arise from this story. That was what Mueller wanted to put the kibosh on. Lots of reasons why he could have wanted to put the kibosh on that. Saying SOMETHING in the article was inaccurate and mischaracterized stops all that. Doesn't mean the thrust of the article is wrong. Maybe this whole article is off-base; maybe Mueller is quibbling at the edges. Just don't know yet.
 
#23,141
#23,141
luthervol said:
I only think he's guilty just as with OJ. I fully understand that he may not be proven guilty (just as with OJ) and will even acknowledge the one in a thousand possibility that he is not personally guilty of collusion.
Worst case scenario, he remains president through the end of his term.
I've said multiple times I will accept Mueller's findings, whatever they may be; and tip my hat to him for a job well done. It's you guys that are unwilling to make that claim. You are all desperately holding on to the "Mueller is part of the deep state, witch hunt, beyond the scope of the investigation" cards because you realize the high probability of incriminating findings of illegalities.
Click to expand...
High probability? Can you give us your statistical formula for this claim?
 
#23,142
#23,142
evillawyer said:
Without a doubt, BuzzFeed got something wrong. Mueller though is not in the business of correcting inaccurate reporting. He's not a media watchdog afterall. There were real political effects starting to arise from this story. That was what Mueller wanted to put the kibosh on. Lots of reasons why he could have wanted to put the kibosh on that. Saying SOMETHING in the article was inaccurate and mischaracterized stops all that. Doesn't mean the thrust of the article is wrong. Maybe this whole article is off-base; maybe Mueller is quibbling at the edges. Just don't know yet.
Click to expand...
#keepinghopealive
 
  • Like
Reactions: NorthDallas40
#23,143
#23,143
luthervol said:
I only think he's guilty just as with OJ. I fully understand that he may not be proven guilty (just as with OJ) and will even acknowledge the one in a thousand possibility that he is not personally guilty of collusion.
Worst case scenario, he remains president through the end of his term.
I've said multiple times I will accept Mueller's findings, whatever they may be; and tip my hat to him for a job well done. It's you guys that are unwilling to make that claim. You are all desperately holding on to the "Mueller is part of the deep state, witch hunt, beyond the scope of the investigation" cards because you realize the high probability of incriminating findings of illegalities.
Click to expand...
You will come completely unglued if Muller ends up with nothing on Trump that will cause him to be removed from office.
 
#23,144
#23,144
37L1 said:
You will come completely unglued if Muller ends up with nothing on Trump that will cause him to be removed from office.
Click to expand...
Nah they’ve already got the talking points on this. Barr and Mueller are buddies so Barr put the kabosh on it and comprised Mueller. Damn you Barr! 🤬
 
#23,149
#23,149
evillawyer said:
Without a doubt, BuzzFeed got something wrong. Mueller though is not in the business of correcting inaccurate reporting. He's not a media watchdog afterall. There were real political effects starting to arise from this story. That was what Mueller wanted to put the kibosh on. Lots of reasons why he could have wanted to put the kibosh on that. Saying SOMETHING in the article was inaccurate and mischaracterized stops all that. Doesn't mean the thrust of the article is wrong. Maybe this whole article is off-base; maybe Mueller is quibbling at the edges. Just don't know yet.
Click to expand...

Even though the statement was short it did say there were inaccuracies with claimed statements from Cohen to the SCO, inaccuracies with claims about documents and testimony given to the SCO.

That covers quite a bit. If it was just a minor inaccuracy about documentation (eg. have texts but not emails) or testimony (Cohen didn't use those exact words) I seriously doubt we'd have heard from Team Mueller. I think it's entirely reasonable to conclude that there are real problems with the story.

Even Dem analysts are backing off and concluding this one just wasn't the "ONE".
 
#23,150
#23,150
Stew Cook said:
Or.. Barr drops the hammer on Trump.. and that's just more proof how powerful the Deep State is. Eh?
Click to expand...
Nope. If Barr has basis to do so and thinks that’s the right answer he’s gonna win that argument. I absolutely believe the entire basis for this witch hunt, yes witch hunt, is fabricated. But it’s going now and Barr isn’t going to stop it nor do I believe he will ignore any factual findings.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top