POLITICS President Trump: 100+ Mornings After (Term 1 Complete)

you are the one gaslighting if you are claiming it says anything about a political motive or "unsatisfactory" motive. I [uck fay]ing linked to the document, so how am I gaslighting?

 

What was the motive?

 

“It’s fair for someone to sit there and look at all of these 17 events and wonder how it could be purely incompetence,” Horowitz conceded.

I also note Horowitz keeps talking about his opinion that it was valid to "open" the investigation. Even if true, the real question is how the investigation was allowed to continue for so long.

 

Let's also discuss the Mueller Investigation. Mueller's team would've seen most of what the IG saw as they got up to speed with what had transpired previously. They knew early in the investigation there was no Russian Collusion.

1) A few of the bad actors from Crossfire Hurricane actually made it on his team and weren't fired until information became public.

2) Mueller and his team knew early on this was all a hoax. Yet, they continued to ruin Americans lives, even prosecuting some for process crimes related to an unnecessary investigation.

3) What impact did Mueller have on the 2018 midterms? His team knew well before the election that Trump was innocent and the Russian Collusion charge was a hoax. Why didn't they come out and say it?

4) Many on Mueller's team, including Mueller himself should be investigated. All of their notes, correspondence on private and public devices, etc. Let's see what the knew and when they knew it.

No one is above the law, right?

 

You could write a fake Dossier today on Joe Biden, turn it over to a FBI agent, and their investigation would be properly predicated.

 

I see Schiff and Comey have moved into the aww shucks we were just incompetent phase of their defense. How long before they claim insanity?

 

Mueller in no way said this was a hoax, dear god. You are such a liar. Direct Mueller quotes:
"If we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so"
"the president was not exculpated for the acts that he allegedly committed"

Asked directly by Congressional inquiry whether his report specifically exonerated the president:
"No"

On Russian interference:
"Absolutely. That was not a hoax"

Mueller also noted the receptiveness of Trump campaign members to Russian help and influence, as well as connections. It's all there in the report. It's in his testimony. He, unequivocally, did not say, insinuate, believe or anything else this was a "hoax" in any shape, form or manner, because it wasn't. In fact, the Mueller Report along should have been enough for impeachment, but the Barr letter obfuscating the report and Mueller's less than stellar presentation to Congress obscure public perception on what was actually written.

 

Did it 404?

 

I’ve left Horowitz’s report unmentioned, not because it isn’t important, but because it doesn’t matter, at least to anyone beyond the Obama Admin, Trump’s Team, FBI & FISA Court.

That Trump and his team were spied on by the FBI, possibly illegally and definitely incompetently, is settled fact and beyond speculation.

While Horowitz failed to attach these acts to a politically-minded intent or motivation (and to which I agree, believing such to be the slipperiest of slopes), asserting that the actions themselves are plenty terrible without them, perhaps it’s telling that he made no attempt to provide any other or alternative motivations which could possibly explain these actions, beyond those which are purely political and personally biased.

While it’s fun and catchy to say, that “no one is above the law”, be it in someone’s defense or accusing - it’s an entirely different meaning altogether, when those words are put to action.

In that regard, Durham’s current and on-going criminal investigation is all that matters, IMO.

The wheels turning slowly and whatnot.

 

So he did not Prove a Negative. Not unusual.

 

You are proving my point in regards to Mueller.

Mueller's performance in the Hearing proved he was a figurehead only. He had no grasp of the facts. It was his team, mostly Dem lawyers, who drove the "investigation".

Do you not think Mueller's team reviewed all evidence prior? Did they incompetently miss what Horowitz found?

Knowing what we now know for fact, how bad do those Mueller quotes look? This is why he and his team should be investigated.

 

No, that was not it. He indicated there was evidence of connections between the Trump team and the Russians, as well as receptiveness on the part of him and his team, but he had no authority to charge him or impeach him. He said here is the evidence I've discovered and it's up to you to make a decision.

But, it most certainly was not a hoax, in Mueller's own (repeated) words.

 

Horowitz is important because some people care about the truth, others do not.

3 years ago, there were people on this board who were adamant the President was a Russian agent and if you questioned that narrative with facts to the contrary, you were then lumped in as doing Putin's bidding. Hating your own Country to support Trump, they said.

So, I quit posting here for a couple years because there was no use in having dialogue with insane people.

Sadly, it looks like not much has changed, even with the overwhelming evidence on our side.

 

No, it doesn't. The Horowitz Report doesn't vindicate your position, at all. They found ample reason for the FBI to open an investigation. There was nothing to suggest Mueller thought the Russian thing to be a hoax. Your whole conception of this is based upon the usual Ben conspiracy show, manipulation of information and simple fantasies.

 

The bar is so low for starting an investigation, your use of ample shows you either don't know the facts or you're gaslighting.

This is why Senate Judiciary Head says it was properly predicated to start but quickly became a criminal conspiracy. Bill Barr says as much as well.

 

That's not my characterization, it's the characterization of Horowitz in his report.

And, it's amazing how the Trumpistas have co-opted ideas and terms, "gaslighting" being here one of them, that they have been so effective in using. It's one of Trump's biggest tools, to accuse others of the things you are doing.

 

You don't need ample evidence to start an investigation. Again, I could write a dossier today, give it to the FBI and there is your "ample evidence".

Be honest.

 

You’re suggesting that I don’t care about the truth?

Did you read where I said it was “important”?

Who’s lumping you in with anyone?

Put on your proof, and you’ll find many on here who will willingly engage you.

 

Speaking of ample evidence, when there was ample evidence the Steele Dossier was bunk, what did the FBI do? Why did they do it?

 

No not you, you and I were one of the few pushing back on the ridiculous Russian agent narrative a few years ago.

It would be fun to read back through December 2016 threads.