Special counsel Robert Mueller

[davew]

Originally Posted by Andy Asaro

https://twitter.com/WSJ/status/1063533451490537472

.. expand the definition of collusion to include asking for hacker help during a political campaign

[hcap]

Originally Posted by Andy A

The Wall Street Journal
✔
@WSJ

Opinion: What will Democrats (and Jeff Flake) do if the Mueller probe finds no collusion evidence, asks @KimStrassel https://on.wsj.com/2DHpT3U
66
3:45 PM - Nov 16, 2018

An opinion piece from someone who knows very little. Not speaking of the evidence but the variable polarity the Mueller probe.

She opines...

"The Mueller probe has lost its political potency, as Democrats acknowledged on the midterm trail. They didn’t win House seats by warning of Russian collusion. They didn’t even talk about it. Most voters don’t care, or don’t care to hear about it. A CNN exit poll found 54% of respondents think the Russia probe is “politically motivated”; a 46% plurality disapprove of Mr. Mueller’s handling of it"

The overwhelming result, is not what democrats did not talk about, but Trump by putting himself on the ballot, doomed the republican party.

As far as evidence...

There’s actually lots of evidence of Trump-Russia collusion
The untenability of the “no collusion” talking point.
https://www.vox.com/2018/6/11/174383...ssia-collusion

Republicans from Donald Trump on down have made “no collusion” a mantra. The term itself is ill-defined in this context; you won’t find it in the US code. But roughly speaking, the question is whether the campaign got involved with Russian agents who committed computer crimes to help Trump win the 2016 presidential election.

The verdict on this is unclear. But there is certainly plenty of evidence pointing toward collusion; what you would call “probable cause” in a legal context, or what a journalist might simply consider reason to continue investigating the story. And the investigating thus far, both by special counsel Mueller and by journalists working on the story, has been fruitful. The efforts have continued to turn up contacts between Trumpworld and Putinland, cover-ups, and dishonesty.

Even as recently as Friday afternoon, we got new indictments charging Trump’s former campaign chair and his former GRU operative business partner with witness tampering and obstruction of justice.
................................

Btw, I should re-iterate...There were contacts, both personal and electronic, between Trump campaign aides and Russians throughout 2016. There was the Trump Tower meeting at which intermediaries conveyed a political tip to Donald Trump Jr. from the Russian government. There was the increase in cyberattacks — on the same day that Trump asked, "Russia, if you're listening," — for it to find Hillary Clinton's deleted emails. And so on.

“Who controls the past controls the future. ... "

[davew]

right again hcap,

Kimberly Strassel clearly does not know as much as YOU. Because YOU know which experts on television to believe.

[Andy Asaro]

Originally Posted by hcap

An opinion piece from someone who knows very little. Not speaking of the evidence but the variable polarity the Mueller probe.

She opines...

"The Mueller probe has lost its political potency, as Democrats acknowledged on the midterm trail. They didn’t win House seats by warning of Russian collusion. They didn’t even talk about it. Most voters don’t care, or don’t care to hear about it. A CNN exit poll found 54% of respondents think the Russia probe is “politically motivated”; a 46% plurality disapprove of Mr. Mueller’s handling of it"

The overwhelming result, is not what democrats did not talk about, but Trump by putting himself on the ballot, doomed the republican party.

As far as evidence...

There’s actually lots of evidence of Trump-Russia collusion
The untenability of the “no collusion” talking point.
https://www.vox.com/2018/6/11/174383...ssia-collusion

Republicans from Donald Trump on down have made “no collusion” a mantra. The term itself is ill-defined in this context; you won’t find it in the US code. But roughly speaking, the question is whether the campaign got involved with Russian agents who committed computer crimes to help Trump win the 2016 presidential election.

The verdict on this is unclear. But there is certainly plenty of evidence pointing toward collusion; what you would call “probable cause” in a legal context, or what a journalist might simply consider reason to continue investigating the story. And the investigating thus far, both by special counsel Mueller and by journalists working on the story, has been fruitful. The efforts have continued to turn up contacts between Trumpworld and Putinland, cover-ups, and dishonesty.

Even as recently as Friday afternoon, we got new indictments charging Trump’s former campaign chair and his former GRU operative business partner with witness tampering and obstruction of justice.
................................

Btw, I should re-iterate...There were contacts, both personal and electronic, between Trump campaign aides and Russians throughout 2016. There was the Trump Tower meeting at which intermediaries conveyed a political tip to Donald Trump Jr. from the Russian government. There was the increase in cyberattacks — on the same day that Trump asked, "Russia, if you're listening," — for it to find Hillary Clinton's deleted emails. And so on.

“Who controls the past controls the future. ... "

She's one of the best in the business and has been for a long time.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by davew

right again hcap,

Kimberly Strassel clearly does not know as much as YOU. Because YOU know which experts on television to believe.

Strassel is using an irrelevant argument as most of you Chumpsters do.

[OntheRail]

Originally Posted by hcap

Strassel is using an irrelevant argument as most of you Chumpsters do.

It's only so to the know nothing other then hatred of Trump humps.

You should buy a new tub of baby lotions as your going to chafe yourself with all this per anticipation leg rubbing.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by hcap

Strassel is using an irrelevant argument as most of you Chumpsters do.

Evidence of "collusion" has nothing to do with the popularity of the Mueller probe

BTW, when all the indictments were being made public,"Big majorities back Mueller and Sessions, while president's disapproval hits 60%, new poll says"
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/08/31/most...ions-poll.html

Now, since things have been quiet due to the mid terms, public opiniont has waned. Over the next few weeks as more indictments are made public, things will heat up again.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by Andy Asaro

She's one of the best in the business and has been for a long time.

So is Mueller. So what?

Evidence is the question

[davew]

Originally Posted by hcap

Strassel is using an irrelevant argument as most of you Chumpsters do.

did this come out of your brain or is it cut and paste? ->

The overwhelming result, is not what democrats did not talk about, but Trump by putting himself on the ballot, doomed the republican party.




I ask because of the 10 races he helped campaign for, 8 of them won....


not near as good as the results from Bernie, 0bamer, Nancy Pelosi, Fauxahontas,.... not not too shabby.

[Tom]

Originally Posted by hcap

Strassel is using an irrelevant argument as most of you Chumpsters do.

Being called names by a humpster.
Imagine.

You have LOZT it.
IF you ever had it.

[hcap]

Interviewing a "great" legal mind.

You ran a casino’: Fox’s Chris Wallace laughs in Trump’s face after he refuses to give ‘odds’ on ending Mueller probe
https://www.rawstory.com/2018/11/ran...mueller-probe/





https://caching.grabien.com/c/stream...zxELcKiLrvHlxA

[davew]

Originally Posted by hcap

So is Mueller. So what?

Evidence is the question

planted evidence or fabricated evidence?

[Andy Asaro]

Twitter

[hcap]

Originally Posted by davew

planted evidence or fabricated evidence?

Another real idiotic conspiracy theory.

So when all else fails swing for the bleachers. Maybe someone planted a brain in Chumpy's head and fabricated a president? Much more likely.

[woodtoo]

Originally Posted by hcap

Another real idiotic conspiracy theory.

So when all else fails swing for the bleachers. Maybe someone planted a brain in Chumpy's head and fabricated a president? Much more likely.