So now we know the Justice Dept/FBI Set Up Papadopoulos....

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

Show me leaks that definitely came from Mueller. (True) leaks, regardless of source, and circumstantial evidence are both evidence.

http://www.politicalchat.org/showpos...9&postcount=20

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

http://www.politicalchat.org/showpos...9&postcount=20

There is no evidence whatsoever that any of these leaks came from Mueller or anyone on his team. The "sources with direct knowledge of the investigation" have frequently been shown to have been witnesses who have spoken to Mueller (or their lawyers) revealing the questions asked or information shown to them or from Congress and/or their staffs. Lastly, the White House leaks like a sieve. That said, not one of the leaks shown can be sourced directly to Mueller.

[bobabode]

Originally Posted by whell

http://www.politicalchat.org/showpos...9&postcount=20

edit - not worth the keystrokes

[donquixote99]

Originally Posted by Chicks

Was quoting a tweet from one of Whell’s uninformed idiots, whose nuttiness Donny is now using to justify his all out assault on the DOJ.

I see, thanks.

[nailer]

Originally Posted by whell

http://www.politicalchat.org/showpos...9&postcount=20

This link doesn't support your claim, which should be relatively easy to support if true. Provide a link to the article and copy the text that provides factual evidence of Mueller or a member of his team leaking information about their investigation.

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

There is no evidence whatsoever that any of these leaks came from Mueller or anyone on his team. The "sources with direct knowledge of the investigation" have frequently been shown to have been witnesses who have spoken to Mueller (or their lawyers) revealing the questions asked or information shown to them or from Congress and/or their staffs. Lastly, the White House leaks like a sieve. That said, not one of the leaks shown can be sourced directly to Mueller.

Uh huh, right. "Sources with direct knowledge of the investigation" most certainly be the tangential folks you describe.

Facts are facts. These are leaks that have steadily come from the Mueller investigation over an extended period of time. One leak might be an exception to the rule. Two might be a coincidence. But a list like this is far less than coincidental, and almost certainly purposeful.

[bobabode]

Originally Posted by whell

Uh huh, right. "Sources with direct knowledge of the investigation" most certainly be the tangential folks you describe.

Facts are facts. These are leaks that have steadily come from the Mueller investigation over an extended period of time. One leak might be an exception to the rule. Two might be a coincidence. But a list like this is far less than coincidental, and almost certainly purposeful.

Bullshyte on a shingle.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

Uh huh, right. "Sources with direct knowledge of the investigation" most certainly be the tangential folks you describe.

Facts are facts. These are leaks that have steadily come from the Mueller investigation over an extended period of time. One leak might be an exception to the rule. Two might be a coincidence. But a list like this is far less than coincidental, and almost certainly purposeful.

It doesn't whatsoever support your claim that these leaks came from Mueller. That said, it's hilarious to see a loyal Trumpkin bitching about leaks. Trump's White House leaks a year worth every single day.

[whell]

Originally Posted by bobabode

Bullshyte on a shingle.

Originally Posted by finnbow

It doesn't whatsoever support your claim that these leaks came from Mueller.

Its as plain as the nose on your face. That said, I wouldn't expect you to agree.

In the meantime, here comes Mark Penn, a Clinton fellow traveler:

“Rather than a fair, limited and impartial investigation, the Mueller investigation became a partisan, open-ended inquisition that, by its precedent, is a threat to all those who ever want to participate in a national campaign or an administration again.”

Yup, as I've said before the Mueller investigation is an investigation in search of a crime. It is not an investigation into an actual crime. And more:

Mr. Penn wrote that the F.B.I. and the Justice Department “broke their own rules” to end the investigation into Mrs. Clinton’s use of a private email server. He implied that Mr. Clinton’s encounter with Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch on a Phoenix airport tarmac in 2016 really was as suspicious as Republicans found it. And he suggested that “Clinton Foundation operatives” got the F.B.I. to investigate Mr. Trump.

“I spent a year working with President Clinton against Ken Starr and that effort,” Mr. Penn said on Fox this month. “I just find that that was child’s play to what’s going on here.”

And finally, the piece that relates all of this back to the OP:

In his column this week, he said the Australian diplomat who told the F.B.I. about an incriminating bar conversation with George Papadopoulos, a Trump campaign adviser, was responsible for a $25 million contribution to the Clinton family’s foundation.

There it is again. A contribution to the Clinton family slush fund. A number of Russian business types contributed to that, but that doesn't appear to be of any interest to anyone in ferreting out whether the Russians influenced the 2016 election.

“You don’t need much imagination to figure that he was close with Clinton Foundation operatives who relayed information to the State Department, which then called the F.B.I. to complete the loop,” Mr. Penn wrote. “This wasn’t intelligence. It was likely opposition research from the start.”

So, George P was set up as part of a likely sting operation in an attempt to create a crime. The initial info was fed to George P by an in informant on the FBI's payroll that was planted in the Trump campaign by the FBI.

Its amazing you guys call THIS a conspiracy theory, and treat the imaginary "Russian collusion" thing as fact. If this happened, its really not that hard to envision, particularly as it may have occurred against the backdrop of years of Democrat losses in the House, Senate, state House and Senate races, and Governors offices. Its not that hard to believe particularly when the folks who would have been involved in orchestrating this were the same folks who "fixed" the Democrat nomination in 2016. If they were willing to do that, what else were they willing to "fix"?

Finally:

In his writings and television appearances, Mr. Penn has said he was not motivated by party politics but by concern for the state of the country.

“Stopping Mueller isn’t about one president or one party,” he wrote. “It’s about all presidents and all parties. It’s about cleaning out and reforming the deep state so that our intelligence operations are never used against opposing campaigns without the firmest of evidence.”

I'm sure that the Dems and their allies will start in earnest trashing Penn.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

Its as plain as the nose on your face. That said, I wouldn't expect you to agree...

So, it's OK for you to jump to conclusions about a grand conspiracy based upon spin from (an always-lying) White House, its discredited lapdog Devin Nunes, and a stray op-ed piece, whereas it's totally out of line for others to surmise that there's pending trouble for the Trump crime family based upon gobs of evidence in the public record, not to mention a bunch of indictments and convictions and cooperating witnesses? You've repeatedly shown that you're not the sharpest tool in the shed, but that you're indeed a tool.