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

[whell]

Originally Posted by Rajoo

Tell me, if there is nothing there, why the conniptions over Mueller?
Why fire Comey? Why bitch over Jeff Sessions recusal?
Why the contradiction between the House and Senate reports?
Why did Flynn and Gates plead guilty?
Why do you keep insisting that there was no collusion and how do you know?

Covered most of this already in other threads and in some detail.

There are no "conniptions" over the Special Counsel, other than the existence of a Special Counsel is a constant source of distraction to any President. I've posted here - I believe in response to you - a reminder about how the Clintons dealt with Ken Starr and company. This is no different.

Comey would have been fired whether or not Trump had been elected. Sessions was an idiot to recuse himself, and he played right into the politics of the moment.

What "contradictions" are you referring to? Need specificity on that question.

You'd need to ask Flynn and Gates, though their plea deals do not have anything to do with "collusion". A similarly interesting question would be why Mueller has requested twice to delay Flynn's sentencing.

I keep insisting that there's no evidence of collusion because there isn't any. Could the investigation have found evidence and simply not yet have made such evidence public? Sure, but that seems very unlikely to me given the number of almost daily leaks that occur from ananymous sources.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

I keep insisting that there's no evidence of collusion because there isn't any. Could the investigation have found evidence and simply not yet have made such evidence public? Sure, but that seems very unlikely to me given the number of almost daily leaks that occur from ananymous sources.

There have been no leaks from the Mueller team. And yes, there's plenty of evidence of collusion, obstruction of justice and financial crimes. Patience, grasshopper.

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

There have been no leaks from the Mueller team. And yes, there's plenty of evidence of collusion, obstruction of justice and financial crimes. Patience, grasshopper.

Gimme a break. I've already posted previously samples of a number of times that Muellers team has leaked.

And no, there is no hard evidence. There are allegations and leaks and circumstantial evidence upon which there has been hyperventilating speculation, but that's about it.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

Gimme a break. I've already posted previously samples of a number of times that Muellers team has leaked.

And no, there is no hard evidence. There are allegations and leaks and circumstantial evidence upon which there has been hyperventilating speculation, but that's about it.

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

[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.

[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

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

edit - not worth the keystrokes

[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.

[Rajoo]

Originally Posted by whell

There are no "conniptions" over the Special Counsel, other than the existence of a Special Counsel is a constant source of distraction to any President.

What "contradictions" are you referring to? Need specificity on that question.

What do you call the constant attacks by the Dotard and his surrogates on Comey, Mueller, Sessions, Rosenstein, FBI and the Justice Department?

So why are the findings so different between the two committee reports, one from the House of Nunes and the other by the Senate?

As for distractions, they begin with all the lying and turmoil within the administration.