Mueller report

[DriveInDriveOut]

You say potato, I say potahto. No conspiracy either.

Not exonerated.
Deal with it snowflake.

 

[LarryBird]

You say potato, I say potahto. No conspiracy either.

You're grasping for straws.

Why won't you read the report? You act as if Mueller is some liberal whipping boy, as opposed to a long respected republican - he didn't go after Trump of his own volition, he was tasked with this duty by the American people, by way of yet another republican - Rod Rosenstein. The purpose of the report was to find out the facts - it wasn't a witch hunt. Sure, some eggs have to be cracked when you're making an omelette, and this was no exception, but it was a fair and thorough investigation by a man, who overall, has been deeply trusted by both sides for his entire career in public service.

Why are you conservatives so keen to discredit one of your own? One you could argue, who gave Trump the benefit of the doubt on several occasions where I don't believe he deserved it, and if Mueller had been a less honorable man, with less conviction for federal laws as they're worded, would not have extended that benefit. He didn't let his personal feelings dictate the report - he let his findings about Trump and his campaign's actions and our federal laws dictate his report.

 

[LarryBird]

Opinion | 4 Disturbing Details You May Have Missed in the Mueller Report

This is an interesting opinion on some of the details contained in the Mueller report, and it actually goes to show how fairly Trump was treated, and how restrained Bob Mueller was in his interpretation of the law in my opinion. I know how some of you feel about the NYT, which is sad in itself, but they're the number 1 newspaper of note in this country, regardless of your hatred of that fact.

 

[It will be fine]

Opinion | 4 Disturbing Details You May Have Missed in the Mueller Report

This is an interesting opinion on some of the details contained in the Mueller report, and it actually goes to show how fairly Trump was treated, and how restrained Bob Mueller was in his interpretation of the law in my opinion. I know how some of you feel about the NYT, which is sad in itself, but they're the number 1 newspaper of note in this country, regardless of your hatred of that fact.

Don’t bother with written articles, these guys are proud about not reading. They won’t ever read the summaries of the report. You need something with lots of pictures, no more than one sentence per page.

 

[vantexan]

Don’t bother with written articles, these guys are proud about not reading. They won’t ever read the summaries of the report. You need something with lots of pictures, no more than one sentence per page.

I've read so many liberal articles where claims were later retracted that I just don't read most of it anymore. And liberal tv news isn't any better. Well informed person like you should have known Page and Strzok were kicked off Mueller's team. But liberal reporters carefully craft the narrative to only let you see things a certain way. If and when socialism takes hold our liberal media will already be practiced in the art of state run media. It's not willful ignorance on my part, it's disgust with what passes for news these days. Enablers for crooked politicians.

 

[It will be fine]

I've read so many liberal articles where claims were later retracted that I just don't read most of it anymore. And liberal tv news isn't any better. Well informed person like you should have known Page and Strzok were kicked off Mueller's team. But liberal reporters carefully craft the narrative to only let you see things a certain way. If and when socialism takes hold our liberal media will already be practiced in the art of state run media. It's not willful ignorance on my part, it's disgust with what passes for news these days. Enablers for crooked politicians.

What does your rant against “the media” have to do with your refusal to read Mueller’s report?

 

[vantexan]

Why 'numerous links' between Trump campaign and Russia didn't add up to conspiracy

Again, much of what they point out has been debunked. Mueller knew this. If there was a "there" there, Mueller would have reported collusion, conspiracy, whatever, and the Dems would have had firm footing for impeachment. Turns out Carter Page was an American intelligence asset, and Papadopoulos was approached by a CIA asset, Stephen Halpert if I remember right, the so called man with Russian contacts, who tried to get him to admit things he didn't have a clue about. As well as a blonde bombshell who tried to seduce him in exchange for info. And it turns out they used British and Australian intelligence to spy on campaign members, doing what they weren't allowed to do. You don't seem to realize the efforts made to get dirt on Trump in hopes of impeaching him.

 

[vantexan]

What does your rant against “the media” have to do with your refusal to read Mueller’s report?

It's all connected BS.

 

[DriveInDriveOut]

It's all connected BS.

Your powers of denial are strong my guy. Fifty rubles for you comrade.

 

[LarryBird]

I've read so many liberal articles where claims were later retracted that I just don't read most of it anymore. And liberal tv news isn't any better. Well informed person like you should have known Page and Strzok were kicked off Mueller's team. But liberal reporters carefully craft the narrative to only let you see things a certain way. If and when socialism takes hold our liberal media will already be practiced in the art of state run media. It's not willful ignorance on my part, it's disgust with what passes for news these days. Enablers for crooked politicians.

Again, much of what they point out has been debunked. Mueller knew this. If there was a "there" there, Mueller would have reported collusion, conspiracy, whatever, and the Dems would have had firm footing for impeachment. Turns out Carter Page was an American intelligence asset, and Papadopoulos was approached by a CIA asset, Stephen Halpert if I remember right, the so called man with Russian contacts, who tried to get him to admit things he didn't have a clue about. As well as a blonde bombshell who tried to seduce him in exchange for info. And it turns out they used British and Australian intelligence to spy on campaign members, doing what they weren't allowed to do. You don't seem to realize the efforts made to get dirt on Trump in hopes of impeaching him.

Do you realize what kind of idiot you sound like?

You are condemning the report, although you have no idea what is contained in said report. Yet, in other instances, when you find it convenient to your viewpoint, you cite this report to further your opinions. Which again, since you're unfamiliar with the exact language contained in the report is truly asinine - you cannot pick and choose and distort the words of Bob Mueller's report when his investigation serves you, and discredit or ignore it, when it does not.

As an American taxpayer, which you sort of were during the bulk of the investigation/currently are again in the present day, you should be interested in it's contents. We paid for it. Like it, and it's contents, or not, the report speaks for itself, if you're so inclined to read it. I think you'd find that it's not liberal or conservative in it's nature, but rather a legal opinion based on the laws of our country - something that the gop once claimed to hold so dear, but obviously that was all bull, as we've found out the past 3 years.

The Mueller report isn't exactly something we democrats love, and it's certainly not beloved by republicans either - which is exactly what the independent prosecutor should hope for, because it means his investigation was down the middle, and no side was favored or claims total victory in this tussle.

Democrats are left thinking he didn’t go far enough or make a clear decision, and Republicans are left thinking Mueller's restraint isn't quite the exoneration they'd hoped for, or that it means his investigation was bogus from the start. So it's not exactly satisfying for anyone, and that's probably the sad truth about these investigations - both sides are left wanting more, for very different reasons.

 

[bbsam]

Again, much of what they point out has been debunked. Mueller knew this. If there was a "there" there, Mueller would have reported collusion, conspiracy, whatever, and the Dems would have had firm footing for impeachment. Turns out Carter Page was an American intelligence asset, and Papadopoulos was approached by a CIA asset, Stephen Halpert if I remember right, the so called man with Russian contacts, who tried to get him to admit things he didn't have a clue about. As well as a blonde bombshell who tried to seduce him in exchange for info. And it turns out they used British and Australian intelligence to spy on campaign members, doing what they weren't allowed to do. You don't seem to realize the efforts made to get dirt on Trump in hopes of impeaching him.

You didn’t read the article.

 

[Sportello]

I can see by the replies in this thread that y'all are arguing with someone I've blocked.

Don't waste your time with him.

 

[newfie]

You're grasping for straws.

Why won't you read the report? You act as if Mueller is some liberal whipping boy, as opposed to a long respected republican - he didn't go after Trump of his own volition, he was tasked with this duty by the American people, by way of yet another republican - Rod Rosenstein. The purpose of the report was to find out the facts - it wasn't a witch hunt. Sure, some eggs have to be cracked when you're making an omelette, and this was no exception, but it was a fair and thorough investigation by a man, who overall, has been deeply trusted by both sides for his entire career in public service.

Why are you conservatives so keen to discredit one of your own? One you could argue, who gave Trump the benefit of the doubt on several occasions where I don't believe he deserved it, and if Mueller had been a less honorable man, with less conviction for federal laws as they're worded, would not have extended that benefit. He didn't let his personal feelings dictate the report - he let his findings about Trump and his campaign's actions and our federal laws dictate his report.

i believe he's allowed to be right when he is , and allowed to be wrong when he is. and I believe republicans are allowed to judge him on his accuracy.
i have read his report its one where he agonized in every decision of obstruction. he was clearly conflicted. being conflicted though he was clear throughout the entire section on obstruction.

i do not have enough to charge nor do i have enough to absolve.

if you really mean what you say then your criticism should be of the democrats for trying to create more then what mueller said.

 

[newfie]

Do you realize what kind of idiot you sound like?

.

projecting again?

 

[LarryBird]

@vantexan, I would pose this question to you in response to your continued defiance regarding the Mueller report and your unwillingness to read it's findings.

Why, if you're so sure of Trump's absolute innocence, wouldn't you want to read the report that the man himself proclaimed gave him 'total exoneration' upon it's conclusion?

Surely something that the Donald has interpreted as being a victory and which supposedly offers conclusive proof his claims of innocence were true (possibly the only true things that came out of his mouth since he started his presidential campaign) cannot be such an awful document, as to make you recoil in disgust at the very mention of reading it, can it?

 

[newfie]

Why, if you're so sure of Trump's absolute innocence, wouldn't you want to read the report that the man himself proclaimed gave him 'total exoneration' upon it's conclusion?

why would Van who believes Trump is not guilty want to read a 450 page report that says trump could not be charged with anything?

is that so he can believe that Trump is even more innocent then he thought.

where do you come up with these idiotic questions

 

[Sportello]

why would Van who believes Trump is not guilty want to read a 450 page report that says trump could not be charged with anything ? [COLOR=#ff4d4d][I](because the DOJ guidelines say it is up to Congress to take action on a sitting President, you ignorant, lying POC[/I][/COLOR])

is that so he can believe that Trump is even more innocent then he thought.

where do you come up with these idiotic questions

Never mind the trumpian grammar, but you've reinforced the belief that you are the only man stupider than my blocked poster.

 

[LarryBird]

i believe he's allowed to be right when he is , and allowed to be wrong when he is. and I believe republicans are allowed to judge him on his accuracy.
i have read his report its one where he agonized in every decision of obstruction. he was clearly conflicted. being conflicted though he was clear throughout the entire section on obstruction.

i do not have enough to charge nor do i have enough to absolve.

if you really mean what you say then your criticism should be of the democrats for trying to create more then what mueller said.

You've almost posed an intelligent debate with this post here. A most unusual occurrence for you.

Kudos.

In fact, I will actually say I enjoyed this post. It reads very logically, and although punctuation and grammar still need much work, and the spacing is atrocious, it has somewhat renewed my faith in the chance that you may not be a full-on * after all is said and done. I will also commend you on your spelling in this particular post - almost impeccable. I only found one mistake, and it's kind of ticky-tack, but I would be being disingenuous to who I am, and how I truly feel about you if I didn't point it out...

The word than is not spelled then. It's more than, not more then. But it's all good. You're improving either way.

G. friend. Y.

 

[LarryBird]

why would Van who believes Trump is not guilty want to read a 450 page report that says trump could not be charged with anything?

is that so he can believe that Trump is even more innocent then he thought.

where do you come up with these idiotic questions

You want the simple answer?

Perhaps because he is one of the most prolific posters in a thread titled 'Mueller Report'...this alone would suggest that the man should read the report, since it's obviously a report he so loves to discuss. If he'd like to continue to discuss it with any semblance of intelligence, that is.

I could elaborate on more lengthy reasons, but that would be unnecessary, since the above gets the job done succinctly.

 

[Sportello]

You've almost posed an intelligent debate with this post here. A most unusual occurrence for you.

Kudos.

In fact, I will actually say I enjoyed this post. It reads very logically, and although punctuation and grammar still need much work, and the spacing is atrocious, it has somewhat renewed my faith in the chance that you may not be a full-on after all is said and done. I will also commend you on your spelling in this particular post - almost impeccable. I only found one mistake, and it's kind of ticky-tack, but I would be being disingenuous to who I am, and how I truly feel about you if I didn't point it out...

The word than is not spelled then. It's more than, not more then. But it's all good. You're improving either way.

G. friend. Y.

We've been encouraging him to improve for over a decade. He's always the same.

We are not sending our best.