captkirk said:

---

garc said:

---

captkirk said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Rapier108 said:

---

---

Good Lord!

Mueller is all hat and no cattle. All of his prosecutions are falling apart at the seams. Bad lawyering.

I use the sad face because these lawyers are supposed to be the best of the best yet they can't figure their way out of a wet paper bag when it comes to trial procedure. And I was never a criminal lawyer but I know how to build a case.

Sheesh! What a waste of money and time.

---

Hahahahahaha What a **** show. This looks terrible. We indicted them, but we just aren't ready. LOLOLOL

---

How can you have all your ducks in a roll to indict, but not be ready for trial?

I tell you how: hire dumbazz Dem partisans as your lawyers who are all too eager to build a case against Trump, which is what he mostly hired.

I can't stand this fcktard.

---

He was just indicting these firms/people for show. Never thought he would see them in court. Whoever is funding these defense lawyers is a genius. Bluff called. If this falls apart, the whole crap fest is suspect

---

whatthehey78 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Trump is the Kwisatz Haderach.

---

Wowzer! Had to do a web search and certainly had forgotten the Dune connect. Sometimes, you're breadth and depth is beyond belief.

---

Quote:

---

"I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration. I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me. And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path. Where the fear has gone there will be nothing. Only I will remain."

"Without change something sleeps inside us, and seldom awakens. The sleeper must awaken."

---

GCP12 said:

---

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/999389025147473925.html
Thread on how Halper was paid through DOD. With a special guest appearance by Jason Chafetz

---

SpreadsheetAg said:

---

GCP12 said:

---

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/999389025147473925.html
Thread on how Halper was paid through DOD. With a special guest appearance by Jason Chafetz

---

Not sure what Chaffetz has to do with it. You think the H-Sub on DOD Oversight looks at every spending line item? I doubt it. Was he an approver of this spending directly? I doubt it. Was he a knowing accomplice to this spending? I highly doubt it.

---

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

captkirk said:

---

garc said:

---

captkirk said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Rapier108 said:

---

---

Good Lord!

Mueller is all hat and no cattle. All of his prosecutions are falling apart at the seams. Bad lawyering.

I use the sad face because these lawyers are supposed to be the best of the best yet they can't figure their way out of a wet paper bag when it comes to trial procedure. And I was never a criminal lawyer but I know how to build a case.

Sheesh! What a waste of money and time.

---

Hahahahahaha What a **** show. This looks terrible. We indicted them, but we just aren't ready. LOLOLOL

---

How can you have all your ducks in a roll to indict, but not be ready for trial?

I tell you how: hire dumbazz Dem partisans as your lawyers who are all too eager to build a case against Trump, which is what he mostly hired.

I can't stand this fcktard.

---

He was just indicting these firms/people for show. Never thought he would see them in court. Whoever is funding these defense lawyers is a genius. Bluff called. If this falls apart, the whole crap fest is suspect

---

But garc is right. Too much single-mindedness to be analytical. You can't assess things from every angle when every player on the team sees things from the same perspective.

Mueller stacking the deck served a purpose, but it's also a big hindrance.

---

VaultingChemist said:

---

Sharyl Attkisson is quoted as saying "only 2% of the corruption has been exposed" so far.

---

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

Red Fishing Ag93 said:

---

I can see myself turning somewhat on Trump if all these jackwagons don't start perp walking soon, including Hillary! The buck stops with him.

---

Get over yourself. He is not driving the investigation...which is precisely why the dims set him up this way. An insurance policy, if you will.

---

Red Fishing Ag93 said:

---

I was thinking more in line of firing Jeff Sessions and getting someone in the DOJ who will actually do their job!

---

ccatag said:

---

I'm not ready to pass judgement on Sessions until we see how this outside Federal prosecution team (Huber) that is aligned with the Inspector General (Horowitz) works out.

---

Tailgate88 said:

---

I think today will be a big day. I'm expecting the defecate to hit the rotary oscillator after these meetings today.

And WHEN IS THE DAMN OIG report going to drop? May is almost up. Or are we pushed off to June now?

---

Quote:

---

It's an argument that evidently didn't occur to Richard Nixon's defenders when it became clear that Nixon operatives burglarized and wiretapped the Democratic National Committee in June 1972.

Until 2016, just about everyone agreed that it was a bad thing for government intelligence or law enforcement agencies to spy (er, secretly collect information?) on a political campaign. Especially a campaign of the opposition party. Liberals were especially suspicious of the FBI and the CIA. Nowadays, they say that anyone questioning those agencies' good faith is unpatriotic.

The crime at the root of Watergate was an attempt at surveillance of the Democratic National Committee's headquarters after George McGovern seemed about to win its presidential nomination, just as the government misconduct in Russia-gate was an attempt at surveillance of the Republicans' national campaign after Trump clinched its nomination on May 3.

---

Quote:

---

In both cases, the incumbent administration regarded the opposition's unorthodox nominee as undermining the nation's longstanding foreign policy and therefore dangerous to the country. George McGovern renounced the Democrats' traditional Cold War policy. Trump expressed skepticism about Bush and Obama administration policies on NATO, Mexico, Iran, and (forgetting Barack Obama's ridicule of Mitt Romney on the subject) Russia.

The incumbents' qualms had some rational basis in each case. But their attempts at surveillance were misbegotten. Back in 1972, my brief experience in campaigns left me skeptical that you could learn anything useful by wiretapping the opposition. If you were reasonably smart, you should be able to figure out what a reasonably smart opposition would do and respond accordingly. Subsequent experience has confirmed that view, unless you faced irrational opposition. It's hard to figure out what stupid people are going to do.


Similarly, it's hard to figure out what the Obama law enforcement and intelligence folks had to gain by spying. Candidate Trump's bizarre refusals to criticize Vladimir Putin or Russia were already a political liability, not an asset. They were criticized aptly and often by candidate Clinton and mainstream media.

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Just read this USA Today editorial. Moonbattery on full display, if you want a laugh but it made me wonder what libs realistically believe Mueller can do to combat Russian cyber activities in the upcoming midterm elections? Isn't that the issue of import here? Apparently not.

Quote:

---

More important, Trump's "I hereby demand" tweet that this tactic be investigated is an abuse of his office. A president should never order his Justice Department whom or what to investigate. If a president can politicize law enforcement as a defensive move by demeaning law enforcement officials, he could do so on the offense by using it to go after rivals.

In fact, Trump is already doing a little of both, attacking those who are trying to uncover the truth and insisting that his senior law enforcement appointees become part of the attack. Because of White House pressure, Republican lawmakers (with no Democrats) will sit down with Justice officials Thursday to review sensitive documents related to the investigation.

The great irony, of course, is that if the FBI showed any institutional bias in 2016, it was to Trump's benefit.

---

My eye balls may fall out from the sheer number of eye rolls there.

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Just read this USA Today editorial. Moonbattery on full display, if you want a laugh but it made me wonder what libs realistically believe Mueller can do to combat Russian cyber activities in the upcoming midterm elections? Isn't that the issue of import here? Apparently not.

Quote:

---

More important, Trump's "I hereby demand" tweet that this tactic be investigated is an abuse of his office. A president should never order his Justice Department whom or what to investigate. If a president can politicize law enforcement as a defensive move by demeaning law enforcement officials, he could do so on the offense by using it to go after rivals.

In fact, Trump is already doing a little of both, attacking those who are trying to uncover the truth and insisting that his senior law enforcement appointees become part of the attack. Because of White House pressure, Republican lawmakers (with no Democrats) will sit down with Justice officials Thursday to review sensitive documents related to the investigation.

The great irony, of course, is that if the FBI showed any institutional bias in 2016, it was to Trump's benefit.

---

My eye balls may fall out from the sheer number of eye rolls there.

---