Mueller Resorts to Extortion?

So when the NYT discovered The Clintons were crooked that was not Fake News.
But now they are not crooks.
How does that happen? Baptism?

 

Only if you want to be uninformed and filled with nonsense. If that's what you think news is, it's no surprise that you get caught out making false and ridiculous claims that you can't back up all the time.

Right trash media. All spin, few facts, and all agenda. (never heard of News R Us, either) The rest of them are all trash, and well known for being trash too.

I

 

I am not aware that anything has change regarding the NYT's coverage of the Clintons.

You wouldn't know, of course. All your knowledge apparantly comes from right trash sites that claim to tell you what the NYT says (and are usually lying to you, not that you seem to mind being lied to).

 

Find it then.

As long as you don't dispute that not reporting the invitation to the FBI was 100% perfectly legal and no laws were broken, I could not possibly care less what word you used in your original post. And you are clearly not disputing that it was in fact legal.

 

Tom, I never cite Breitbart. Surely you have noticed - I only cite MSM Fake News sources I know you will like.

So, are you saying that The Knife Media is one of those "Fake News alt.right" sources that should be ignored - like Breitbart?

 

The discussion is about the legality of the meeting that took place. And it appears to be perfectly 100% legal. You have any comment on that?

 

Even your side is no longer peddling this legal gibberish the utter stupidity and absurdity of which is just too embarrassing. Didn't you get the memo? Did you at least get the memo that the travel ban was legal?

 

LOL! I double dog dare you to paste up a citation to one of your "right trash sites" from one of my posts.

“The Clintons, that’s a crime family, basically,” Kallstrom said. “It’s like organized crime. I mean the Clinton Foundation is a cesspool.” Kallstrom, best known for leading the investigation into the explosion of TWA flight 800 in the late 90s, said that Hillary Clinton was a “pathological liar.”

He also blasted Attorney General Loretta Lynch, claiming that she impeded the investigation into Clinton’s private server.

“The problem here is this investigation was never a real investigation,” he said. “That’s the problem. They never had a grand jury empanelled, and the reason they never had a grand jury empanelled, I’m sure, is Loretta Lynch would not go along with that.”
THE HILL, Ex-FBI official: Clintons are a 'crime family’, By Harper Neidig, October 30, 2016.
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box...rmer-fbi-official-clintons-are-a-crime-family

Is The Hill one of those "right trash sites".

 

The NYT's article never said she was crooked. They said money went to the foundation. It was alleged previously on this forum that she benefited financially from Uranium 1. That turned out to be false.

Exactly! And it was never proven the Clinton's were, and the NYT's article was correct. Except the article that you claim says she was a crook, is not true. They simply aren't saying that, and SNOPES. com cleared up all the confusion, that you try and twist. Your dishonesty once again, shines like new money.

 

Dodge noted. I take said dodge as an admittance that you cannot or will not back your previous claim that I allegedly posted the following "I can't allege a crime but you can't prove you did not commit it".

I make no claim of its legality or illegality as I am not a legal expert on the subject and could only speculate upon the preceding which I prefer not to do as speculation is not synonymous with fact.

 

It isn't a news site at all. None of the people working there are reporters or journalists of any sort.

 

You seem to be having real problems in understanding Uranium 1; http://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-uranium-russia-deal/

 

Left, opposition... w/e, you're with us or against us.

 

Like I said, no crime, no violation of law was alleged, charged or even suggested, there is nothing to prove.

Excellent, glad to hear you make no claim that they were required to report the invitation to the FBI. Nothing further, your honor.

 

And you guys have zero proof of that. Delusional.

If you are so concerned about foreign interference why don't we get to the bottom of the Clinton Foundation?

 

As an independent I could not care less about the binary political posturing of the left.

 

Absence of evidence is evidence of absence as opposed to irrefutable proof of nonexistence. The problem for the left here is that the longer the investigation goes on without uncovering a smoking gun, the more the investigation looks like a which hunt to the American public and the more seats they risk loosing during the midterms. The problem on the right is that too many Trump associates failed to fully disclose meetings with foreign officials, an email clearly saying that the Russian government wants to help the Trump campaign, and the ever evolving narrative placed forth by the Trump White House which may come back to bite the RNC in the butt come midterms.

I am all for it, but Trump shortly after his win went back on his word to "Lock her up!"

 

Who else is familiar with the probe, and looking into any other matters outside Russian Interference and collusion?

 

You lefties keep talking about Conservatives abandoning Trump. Lets see the link. Otherwise its just you lefties talkin about something you have no clue of.

Oh and Cruz refused to endorse Trump during the primaries. Once Trump became the Presidential nominee Cruz endorsed him.

 

You know that that email was not sent by the Russian government, it came from an imposter, right? Which indirectly shows that there was no coordination between the campaign and the Russian government.

In law (which is what we are discussing), absence of evidence equates to immediate, unconditional unquestionable not guilty verdict with accuser being laughed out of court with prejudice and quite possibly penalized for filing frivolous lawsuits.

Your "irrefutable proof of nonexistence" on the other hand is very well known in the world as a request "to prove a negative" and is universally considered a desperate, intellectually dishonest debating technic used in bad faith.

 

And I could care less about your independent status.

 

It is all distraction to prevent real discourse. Why does the media report on Russia 24/7 when there is currently zero evidence , why don't they concentrate on what matters until the investigations are complete? Rhetorical question.

 

Jr. admitted to, and agreeing to going and getting dirt on Clinton didn't he? You can't get better proof than that. I mean seriously, that idiot Jr.dropped that in Mueller's lap.

Your off topic question only proves you have nothing to offer for the first.

And by the way, we already got the bottom of the Clinton Foundation. SNOPES.com cleared up all the misunderstanding and lies associated with that.

So, move along now, and hide under your off topic escape.

 

You tell me and we'll both know.

 

Because there is. It's evidence you are powerless to argue or deny; https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/11/110.20.

The trail of money will make it complete. Any fool knows, that to find the goods on a criminal, you follow the money.