The strange greatness of Donald Trump

[Mountain Man]

Mueller has not looked at Trump’s finances. Trump is motivated by money, revenge and hatred [he has zero interest in public service]. So, there is much more to discover, and we know that by Trump’s own words and behavior.

Right... I guess Mueller must have forgotten that financial crimes were a thing and didn't go looking for them during his broad investigation of Trump.

Poor Dirty Cop Mueller, he tried so hard, and you guys are still throwing him under the bus!

[firstfloor]

Right... I guess Mueller must have forgotten that financial crimes were a thing and didn't go looking for them during his broad investigation of Trump.

Poor Dirty Cop Mueller, he tried so hard, and you guys are still throwing him under the bus!

He wasn’t looking at any crimes, just crimes having to do with Russian interference in the election. The report explains it.

[Mountain Man]

He wasn’t looking at any crimes, just crimes having to do with Russian interference in the election. The report explains it.

The report doesn't tell us everything. There are a lot of reasons Dirty Cop Mueller doesn't want to publicly testify.

[JimL]

The report doesn't tell us everything. There are a lot of reasons Dirty Cop Mueller doesn't want to publicly testify.

What would those reasons be, MM. You're all over the map on this. You think that Mueller's investigation exonerated the president and yet you still call him a dirty cop. Which is it, MM? I think that what it is that you realize is that the Mueller report didn't exonerate the President at all, you're just happy with Atty Gen. Barrs false summary of that report.

[Mountain Man]

What would those reasons be, MM. You're all over the map on this. You think that Mueller's investigation exonerated the president and yet you still call him a dirty cop. Which is it, MM? I think that what it is that you realize is that the Mueller report didn't exonerate the President at all, you're just happy with Atty Gen. Barrs false summary of that report.

One reason is that Mueller wasn't the architect of the investigation (he took over work that had been started by the Obama administration at least a year prior) and may not be able to keep all the lies straight. How many times do you think he'd be able to get away with "I don't recall," or "You'd have to ask another member of my team" when asked pointed questions? If he's not very careful, he could easily implicate himself.

Another reason is that Mueller testifying can only be good for Trump, because unless Mueller perjurs himself or contradicts his own findings, he can only reassert what he wrote in the report, that the President did not commit any crimes.

There are other reasons, of course -- institutional loyalty, wanting to protect the reputation of the FBI, and so on -- but those are, I think, the main reasons. Those are also likely the reasons Nutty Nadler refuses to drop the hammer on Mueller and compel him to testify.

[rogue06]

He wasn’t looking at any crimes, just crimes having to do with Russian interference in the election. The report explains it.

But he was eagerly busy creating crimes in order to charge folks who hadn't done anything wrong (process crimes) which strongly suggests that if he came across any evidence of criminal wrongdoing he would have pursued it. After all he had a very open-ended investigation with no specific instructions limiting him.

[JimL]

But he was eagerly busy creating crimes in order to charge folks who hadn't done anything wrong (process crimes) which strongly suggests that if he came across any evidence of criminal wrongdoing he would have pursued it.

Which crimes were those that Mueller created, rogue?

After all he had a very open-ended investigation with no specific instructions limiting him.

Oh, Mueller found plenty of evidence of criminal wrongdoing, but those crimes were not what he was responsible for. Those were turned over to the state and Trump will be answering for those soon enough as well.

[JimL]

One reason is that Mueller wasn't the architect of the investigation (he took over work that had been started by the Obama administration at least a year prior) and may not be able to keep all the lies straight. How many times do you think he'd be able to get away with "I don't recall," or "You'd have to ask another member of my team" when asked pointed questions? If he's not very careful, he could easily implicate himself.

All what lies? Do you just assume whatever you want to believe to be true or do you have evidence showing that the investigation was built upon lies. What lies? Besides that, the Mueller investigation was independent, regardless of whatever info he inherited from the intel agencies.

Another reason is that Mueller testifying can only be good for Trump, because unless Mueller perjurs himself or contradicts his own findings, he can only reassert what he wrote in the report, that the President did not commit any crimes.

Yeah, except that he never said that, you dope.

There are other reasons, of course -- institutional loyalty, wanting to protect the reputation of the FBI, and so on -- but those are, I think, the main reasons. Those are also likely the reasons Nutty Nadler refuses to drop the hammer on Mueller and compel him to testify.

You're just dreaming up stuff now, you got nothing factual, but then again, you don't need anything factual, you live in the fake news bubble.

[Mountain Man]

All what lies? Do you just assume whatever you want to believe to be true or do you have evidence showing that the investigation was built upon lies. What lies? Besides that, the Mueller investigation was independent, regardless of whatever info he inherited from the intel agencies.

Yeah, except that he never said that, you dope.

You're just dreaming up stuff now, you got nothing factual, but then again, you don't need anything factual, you live in the fake news bubble.

I suggest you read the following thread from the beginning, because there's a lot you are Ignorant of.

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...eachment-Plans

[JimL]

I suggest you read the following thread from the beginning, because there's a lot you are Ignorant of.

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...eachment-Plans

No arguing by web link there, MM. I'll take you haven't any answer.

[Cow Poke]

No arguing by web link there, MM. I'll take you haven't any answer.

He didn't argue by weblink, Jimmy - he suggested you read something that answers your question. But, I'll admit, that's incredibly unfair of him.

[JimL]

He didn't argue by weblink, Jimmy - he suggested you read something that answers your question. But, I'll admit, that's incredibly unfair of him.

That pretty much what arguing by web link is, CP. He obviously can't answer the question himself.

[Cow Poke]

That pretty much what arguing by web link is, CP. He obviously can't answer the question himself.

No, Jimmy - if he had only posted the link, and not made reference to it, or suggested what it might show, that would be "argument by weblink".

And, aren't you the clown who frequently refuses to provide an answer, demanding somebody else "look it up"?

[Mountain Man]

No, Jimmy - if he had only posted the link, and not made reference to it, or suggested what it might show, that would be "argument by weblink".

And, aren't you the clown who frequently refuses to provide an answer, demanding somebody else "look it up"?

It's not so much argument by weblink as it is pointing him to another discussion on the forum where his questions have already been answered.

And as far as I remember, the tWeb rule is to prevent people from simply posting links back and forth without actually engaging each other in a conversation.

[Cow Poke]

It's not so much argument by weblink as it is pointing him to another discussion on the forum where his questions have already been answered.

And as far as I remember, the tWeb rule is to prevent people from simply posting links back and forth without actually engaging each other in a conversation.

EGGzackly.