It wasn't a hoax

Mueller's nearly as dumb as Biden. We stand presumed innocent before the law. We have no need to be "exonerated" by a corrupt dirtbag like Mueller.

He came up dirty in the Whitey Bulgar crime spree early in his career and the stink never got better.

 

I've mostly stayed out of whole 'deep state' debate but I found this interesting:

 

So? I don't think you get it. The right overstates, overplays their hand on the FISA warrant.

Only a few pages of the 500 page Mueller report had anything to do with Carter Page.
The IG report specifically stated that, despite FBI sloppiness on FISA applications, Crossfire Hurricane was properly predicated and no evidence of FBI bias.

That is all that matters. Like I said in the OP, for reasons stated, reasons you, and most of you on the right ignore, your Dossier hysteria is just that, a side show.

You're tall on claims, short on evidence.

As long as you do not traffic in loaded terms, cheap shots, sophomoric rhetoric, tought-terminating clichés, weasel words, etc., I'll engage, that simple.

That's not an ad hominem, that is valid criticism.

Know the difference. It will save you a lot of confusion.

 

Frum is a merit worthy person to quote.

There is absolutely no reason to avoid EVERYONE who appears on ANY TV show, EVER, except, Hee Haw, or something like that..

Some, yes, not everyone

Go find some logic.

Either refute the OP, the source, or be gone.

 

Au contraire, be glad to offer proof that you do not understand election law in this regard.

First, Hillary did not play a role in Fusion GPS's decision to hire Steele. Because of that fact, you cannot characterize it as 'hiring a foreign national by proxy'.

See, thing is, that fact is a moot issue.

Steele's oppo research doesn't actually violate US Election laws. The key difference is highlighted below.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steele_dossier#Legal_status_as_related_to_U.S._election_laws

Legal status as related to U.S. election laws
The legal status of the dossier relates to FEC laws forbidding foreign nationals from contributing to political campaigns, and that applies to any form of aid, not just cash donations. The dossier and the 2016 Trump Tower meeting are frequently contrasted and conflated in this regard. At issue is the legal difference between a campaign expenditure and a campaign contribution.

Philip Bump has explained "why the Trump Tower meeting may have violated the law—and the Steele dossier likely didn't":[469] "Hiring a foreign party to conduct research is very different, including in legal terms, than being given information by foreign actors seeking to influence the election. What's more, Trump's campaign did accept foreign assistance in 2016, as the investigation by special counsel Robert S. Mueller III determined."[103]

The Trump Tower meeting involved a voluntary offer of aid ("a campaign contribution"[469]) to the Trump campaign from the Russian government, and the offer was thus illegal to accept in any manner. Already before the meeting the Trump campaign knew the source and purpose of the offer of aid, still welcomed the offer, successfully hid it for a year, and when the meeting was finally exposed, Trump issued a deceptive press release about it.

By contrast, Steele's work was a legal, declared, campaign expense[469] and did not involve any voluntary offer of aid to the Clinton campaign from the Russian government. FEC law allows such declared campaign expenditures, even if performed by foreigners.[469]

Bump explains that:

President Trump has deliberately and regularly conflated the two, arguing that the former meeting was innocuous and that the real malfeasance—the real collusion—was between Clinton's campaign and those Russians who were speaking to Steele. Trump is incorrect. There is no reason to think that Clinton's campaign is culpable for any illegal act related to the employment of Steele and good reason to think that the law was broken around the meeting at Trump Tower—and that members of the Trump team might face legal consequences.[469]

 

I'm not your dictionary, look it up.

I'll tell you what it doesn't mean. It doesn't mean 'factual basis of guilt'.

Why? because if they knew that, there would be no need for an investigation, Duh, what do you think it means?

So what is 'factual' in 'factual basis'?

Occam's razor leads to only one point:

That the investigation's legitimacy is fact. The last clause in the sentence is the clue. It's a compound sentence where one begets the other, so the former must be pertinent to the latter, and that leads us to understand that what is factual is the legitimacy of the investigation and thus it was initiated for an authorized purpose.

That's' all it means.


That quote is from the IG report, which means your entire argument crumbles.

No one is disputing that Mueller did not find Trump guilty of conspiracy. Successful investigations often clear the suspicions of circumstantial evidence that predicate them. That outcome, one of three possible outcomes, all of which, once achieved, demonstrates a successful investigation.

Here is what many on the right don't get: failure to indict does not equal hoax.

If that were true, then every investigation that didn't lead to a conviction is a hoax, and that is absurd,

The whole point of an investigation is to determine if there is guilt (sufficient data to indict/ give report to congress), OR NOT, and the investigation must be predicated and have a factual basis.

That threshold was met. Whatever the outcome was, matters not.

The salient fact is that the investigation had a factual basis and was initiated for an authorized purpose.

Nothing else matters.

 

Doesn't matter.

All that matters is IG Horowitz's confirmation that the investigation had a factual basis and was initiated for an authorized purpose.

And that he did do.

 

How many times has it been explained to you, in media, or to anyone who has been paying attention:

Mueller's investigation didn't follow the protocols of a prosecutor, it was a report to congress. Because of the OLC memo, the concept of 'investigation to indict, or not' is moot.

Moot. Got that? What that means, popscott, that if he didn't indict, it's meaningless, you don't get to score points on that one.

Why? Because OLC memo on a prez changed the protocol. Okay, I'll spell it out for you if you still are confused.

Because of the OLC memo, not to indict a sitting prez, indictment wasn't on the radar, so if he didn't indict, it doesn't mean he can't be indicted.

In other words, the investigation was, in reality, a hybrid, one of an investigative report writer where he would have the luxury of exoneration, and thus would be justified in asserting that if his report did exonerate, he would say so, and a report to Congress, where they could take the info and impeach, or not impeach.

 

What a load of BS .. name calling again .. no substance or response to the matarial presented. These are not "My Claims" can you not read ? .. What part of "Should have required the system to stop and reevaluate" did you not understand ?

Why are you blabbering on in an Ad Hom Rage .. demonizing the messenger .. .

Whats more : “The statements by Mr. Strzok question the entire premise of the FBI’s investigation of the Trump Campaign and make it even more outrageous that the Mueller team continued this investigation for almost two and a half years. Moreover, the statements by Strzok raise troubling questions as to whether the FBI was impermissibly unmasking and analyzing intelligence gathered on U.S. persons."https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/pr...ly-undercut-steele-dossier-page-fisa-warrants

Exactly what I been tellin ya .. Kangaroo clown show

 

Do you know what 'obstruction of justice' means?

I don't think you do.

Research it a little, before you ask another uninformed question like your last one.

 

You posted MSM isn't biased (my words)...You're wrong. MSM didn't print about Hunter's laptop nor deny that the laptop was Russian disinformation.

 

All the evidence is there but The Following is too busy being distracted by the shiny object over there.

 

You have a lot to learn about people. I don't respond well to threats.

MSNBC picks and chooses what they present. I have zero reason to believe them this time. There are a couple of subjects which I consider myself an expert. When they talk about those subjects, they distort, omit and flatly lie.

 

So according to you, the reason why there are no charges against Trump, is supporters of Trump are busy being distracted?
Thats what you're saying?
Do you even read what you post?
So how does distracted Trump supporters keep Democrats from making criminal accusations about Russia in an impeachment proceeding when (according to you) they have all the evidence?
Can't wait to hear this.

 

""I'll tell you what it doesn't mean. It doesn't mean 'factual basis of guilt'."

Nope.. you will not slither out of this one... just answer the question...
Please explain what that factual basis was the IG] report found to start the FBI's investigation...

 

I understand why you keep making this specious point, it's a smokescreen. Intended to pretend Mueller had the choice of making criminal referrals when he plainly said a sitting prez has immunity from such. Now that the smoke has been cleared you're left with nothing but the evidence. The evidence of obstruction of justice detailed in granular fashion in Mueller's report. Unfortunately, not all the evidence on the collusion side of the investigation could be obtained since some key witnesses refused to cooperate.

Mueller documented numerous efforts by Trump and his associates that prevented his team from gathering the evidence that it sought. Despite Attorney General William Barr’s characterization of the White House as “fully cooperative with the Special Counsel’s investigation,” the Mueller report paints a different picture. Mueller wrote about numerous instances in which witnesses lied or withheld information, deleted communications and used encrypted messaging applications. Other practical obstacles prevented Mueller from completing his investigation, including some witnesses’ refusal to answer questions on the basis of their Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, other legal privileges and the inability to obtain evidence located overseas.
https://www.justsecurity.org/64679/...successfully-obstruct-muellers-investigation/

 

If Trump obstructed Muellers report you would not be able to read it.

 

Have you forgotten the two impeachments were focused on the extortion of Zelensky and Don's involvement in the attempted coup? I'm getting tired of having to correct your constant factual inaccuracies and confusion about........well..........everything.

 

Being you have side stepped any attempt to describe what actually started the investigation and keep copy and pasting everyone else's work , not your own... through this whole thread.... please answer the question....

In your OWN words.... what started the Crossfire Hurricane investigation.

 

Just because you don't have the ability to understand what a special counsel's job is and are so easily manipulated by the media, doesn't mean everyone else is.
There is no such thing a presidential immunity from a special counsel making criminal recommendations to the AG, to be provided to a committee for an impeachment hearing.
Ken Starr made 11 felony criminal recommendations on Clinton of which he was impeached on 3 of those.

All you are doing is showing your lack of knowledge on the subject and how easy it is for the media to control you.
So go ahead and continue with your fake news claims. You're just being laughed at.

 

Please... without one of your 3 page copy and paste of someone else's work... that prove nothing..

Please tell us IN YOUR OWN WORDS what was the "dirt" the Russians had on Hillary.

 

Someone is being controlled by the media sources they use, but it isn't me. I apologize for repeatedly humiliating you.

In his first public remarks on the case since he concluded his investigation, Mueller said that if his office “had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so,” and noted that the Constitution “requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting president of wrongdoing.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...4fd226-8217-11e9-933d-7501070ee669_story.html

 

So now you are trying to deflect? This is what you think is going to change the conversation? Do these things work on you?
You claimed the left has all this massive evidence of Trump working with Russia and his countless obstruction acts.
When I asked you why Democrats haven't used any of those claims in an impeachment, you claimed its because Trump supporters are attracted to shinny things.
Now its Zelensky and attempted coup?
So you have answered the question. You can't support your own fake claims of all these so called criminal acts that have never been brought to an impeachment hearing.
So instead of trying to support your claim its on too anything else you can dig up?
You make me laugh out loud.

 

More spin, more propaganda. I know, this is all the left have these days. From, Brezinski, et al, not credible on this. And the fact you don't spend your time looking at the actual facts here, astounding. Why waste everyone else's time with this BS?

 

Prove it.