Quote:
Originally Posted by finnbow
There hasn't yet been a single leak from Mueller's team and every action he has taken has been a complete surprise to everyone involved.
|
Oh, no. Not a single leak. Except for these:
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...m_npd_nn_tw_ma
https://www.cnn.com/2017/10/27/polit...ion/index.html
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...ts-cooperation
https://www.wsj.com/articles/special...obe-1501788287 In this one, the WSJ reported on the Grand Jury and the Prez's legal counsel wasn't aware of it.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/special...ers-1503694304
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...-tower-n796746
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-u...-idUSKBN1C92WN
https://pagesix.com/2018/01/02/russi...-says-witness/
https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/15/polit...ion/index.html
You claim no leaks, yet there's been plenty of news from "sources with direct knowledge of the investigation" about what Mueller's merry band is up to. While the articles, of course, don't name sources, the leaks appear in some cases to come from folks on Mueller's team, or possibly someone within the DOJ that Mueller may be required to brief. In any case, the info is getting out there.
Quote:
Originally Posted by finnbow
Your faulty logic is an example of the adage "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." In other words, you seem to believe that since you don't know everything that Mueller knows, Mueller knows nothing. It doesn't work that way, Skippy.
|
More BS. You may be wishing for a particular outcome here, and that's fine. But you don't get to ignore the information that's out there in the process, an then tell me "it doesn't work that way" while you ignore it.