Mueller Investigation pt 7

[Aridas]

You're right, you didn't. That was my mistake conflating a couple other posts with yours. Yuppie suggested I was "normalizing lying" . In my view Trump has been peeing on America with his constant lying and attacks on our institutions. I ADMITTEDLY took a literary licence

And as I noted, I find that particular kind of literary license to be problematic, given that it gets important things wrong and does it in a way that supports known misinformation.

with the Steele dossier which in itself offered an outrageous story without any evidence about Russian hookers and Trump.

Again, this is Trump. "Outrageous" likely isn't the right word.

I mean if you're going to believe that story on that evidence whats the difference?


I don't even need to go to Wikipedia since I saw the interview they referenced. It's not that Comey thought poorly of Steele. It's that he saw the Steele Dossier for what it was which was raw intelligence. He didn't believe the salacious bits and while he thought the Dossier warranted further vetting he wasn't going to prejudge how much was true or false.

And, to be clear, I respect Comey's stated position there. With that said, there is a substantial difference between dismissing something out of hand, which is exactly what you're saying that you did, reserving judgement until such time as more evidence is added to the equation, which is more along the lines of what Comey stated he did for the Dossier (and I did), and just believing something based on that alone, which quite seems to be what you're characterizing as the position that anyone who didn't immediately dismiss it out of hand is taking. Going further, when you claim that Comey first believed that the Steele Dossier could be true when Trump asked him to disprove it all, that's painting a substantially different picture from what Comey stated, which you're now walking back a little.

Either way, when it comes to discussion about how likely that particular bit of raw intelligence actually is, it's worth poking at that little thing in the Mueller Report where we have a Russian claiming that he's stopped the tapes from spreading. Also, Trump's numerous and demonstrated lies in his defense. Certainly not proof in and of itself, but it's certainly enough that the tapes story probably shouldn't be just assumed to be false.

 

[Belz...]

World Exclusive: Post Testimony Interview with Randy Credico

The Clinton media, including CNN, the Washington Post and New York Times, are baffled by this.

What's funny is that you're not embarrassed with posting drivel like this. The "Clinton media"? Really? CE, you need to get back to reality.

Another fact-free word salad.

Made perfect sense to me.

 

[acbytesla]

And, to be clear, I respect Comey's stated position there. With that said, there is a substantial difference between dismissing something out of hand, which is exactly what you're saying that you did, reserving judgement until such time as more evidence is added to the equation, which is more along the lines of what Comey stated he did for the Dossier (and I did), and just believing something based on that alone, which quite seems to be what you're characterizing as the position that anyone who didn't immediately dismiss it out of hand is taking. Going further, when you claim that Comey first believed that the Steele Dossier could be true when Trump asked him to disprove it all, that's painting a substantially different picture from what Comey stated, which you're now walking back a little.

Either way, when it comes to discussion about how likely that particular bit of raw intelligence actually is, it's worth poking at that little thing in the Mueller Report where we have a Russian claiming that he's stopped the tapes from spreading. Also, Trump's numerous and demonstrated lies in his defense. Certainly not proof in and of itself, but it's certainly enough that the tapes story probably shouldn't be just assumed to be false.

I don't think we are that far off on Comey. What I said was he didn't take much stock in it. I guess I wasn't clear enough. I wasn't saying that he dismissed it out of hand, but that it required a lot more vetting for him to vouch for its details.

 

[varwoche]

Yes, the Trump-Russia collusion conspiracy theory was entirely a western media and western intelligence generated PYSOPS campaign against the American people; not a single bit of it was ever true.

Fascinating. The Justice Dept is investigating the origins of the investigation into Trump. If this investigation fails to deliver, will you re-assess?

Even if I accept this spectacular CT at face value, there are still glaring problems, such as the infamous Trump Tower meeting with Russian operatives, and Trump's lies attempting to explain said meeting.

At the very least, this lays to waste "entirely".

 

[tanabear]

I see tanabear just keeps repeating the same nonsense.

I think what's funny is Andrew McCabe. The man who made sure the investigations into Trump would go on after he met with Trump who was dancing on fired Comey's grave. McCabe became the acting FBI director after Comey's firing. Trump wanted McCabe to parrot his line that FBI was happy to see Comey go. But McCabe wouldn't play ball and said the opposite directly contradicting the Liar in Chief.

This is an interesting statement: "The man who made sure the investigations into Trump would go on after he met with Trump..."

The FBI's Crossfire Hurricane was a counterintelligence investigation, not a criminal investigation. A counterintelligence investigation is to gather information on foreign threats pertaining to national security. It was not an investigation into Trump, but supposedly an investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election. James Comey had assured Trump three times that he was not personally under investigation. The first time was during their first meeting on January 6th, 2017. He briefed Trump on some of the more salacious claims in the yet un-published dossier. Then again on January 27th and lastly on March 30th.

From James Comey's testimony on June 8th, 2017:

COLLINS: There was the March 30th phone call with the president in which you reminded him that congressional leaders had been briefed that we were no personally — the FBI was not personally investigating president trump. And, again, was that statement to congressional leaders and to the president limited to counterintelligence investigations, or was it a broader statement? I'm trying to understand whether there was any kind of investigation of the president underway.

COMEY: No. I'm sorry. If I misunderstood, I apologize. We briefed the congressional leadership about what Americans we had opened counterintelligence investigation cases on. We specifically said, the president is not one of those Americans. But there was no other investigation of the president that we were not mentioning at that time. The context was, counterintelligence, but I wasn't trying to hide some criminal investigation of the president.

COLLINS: And was the president under investigation at the time of your dismissal on May 9th?

COMEY: No.

So according to James Comey, Trump was not under investigation when Comey was dismissed. Now I understand that many Americans thought that Trump was under investigation at this time. This was due to all the classified information being linked to the press about Trump and his contacts with Russia ad infinitum. It was creating a cloud over his Presidency. He wanted James Comey to state publicly what he was telling Trump privately, that he personally was not under investigation. Comey refused and Trump said, "You're fired!"

Of course, this plot by Comey and others to tell Trump that he was not personally under investigation was merely a tactic to keep the investigation going once Trump became President. It was always really a criminal investigation masquerading as a "counterintelligence" investigation.

And how could firing Comey be obstruction if Comey assured him he wasn't under investigation?

Rod Rosenstein then appointed Robert Mueller as Special Counsel so he could get back into the good graces of the fake news media. What experience does Mueller have in counterintelligence? What crimes were they tasked with investigating? None. It was an open ended fishing expedition. Or to be more blunt, the next phase of the coup attempt.

Fascinating. The Justice Dept is investigating the origins of the investigation into Trump. If this investigation fails to deliver, will you re-assess?

Even if I accept this spectacular CT at face value, there are still glaring problems, such as the infamous Trump Tower meeting with Russian operatives, and Trump's lies attempting to explain said meeting.

At the very least, this lays to waste "entirely".

Do you believe that Joseph Mifsud is really a Russian agent?

The Trump tower meeting was arranged by Bob Goldstone, a British music publicist. They met with Natalia Veselnitskaya who strangely enough was also working with Glenn Simpson of Fusion GPS. Small World!!!

 

[smartcooky]

More fact-free gish gallop from 16.5 v2.0

 

[acbytesla]

This is an interesting statement: "The man who made sure the investigations into Trump would go on after he met with Trump..."

So according to James Comey, Trump was not under investigation when Comey was dismissed. Now I understand that many Americans thought that Trump was under investigation at this time. This was due to all the classified information being linked to the press about Trump and his contacts with Russia ad infinitum. It was creating a cloud over his Presidency. He wanted James Comey to state publicly what he was telling Trump privately, that he personally was not under investigation. Comey refused and Trump said, "You're fired!"

Of course, this plot by Comey and others to tell Trump that he was not personally under investigation was merely a tactic to keep the investigation going once Trump became President. It was always really a criminal investigation masquerading as a "counterintelligence" investigation.

And how could firing Comey be obstruction if Comey assured him he wasn't under investigation?

Rod Rosenstein then appointed Robert Mueller as Special Counsel so he could get back into the good graces of the fake news media. What experience does Mueller have in counterintelligence? What crimes were they tasked with investigating? None. It was an open ended fishing expedition. Or to be more blunt, the next phase of the coup attempt.

The Trump tower meeting was arranged by Bob Goldstone, a British music publicist. They met with Natalia Veselnitskaya who strangely enough was also working with Glenn Simpson of Fusion GPS. Small World!!!

What a moronic and stupid CT post. Trump is a lying dishonest POS. And yet you just eat it up and go yummie. Seriously, why would you EVER believe someone who over the last 30 years has proven he is incapable of telling the truth? He screams FAKE NEWS and you eat it up. What if he said LUGENPRESSE?

You dismiss Comey a lifetime Federal Law Enforcement officer and take the word of a carnival barker? The media is all lying. The cops are all lying. The ambassadors are all lying. Trump said he didn't know the two Russians associates of Giuliani and yet they met with Trump at least 10 times. Is the press lying about that? Everyone is lying but the biggest liar of all.

What we get from Trump is disinformation diarrhea. Me, I don't eat ****.

I really don't understand your entire CT post. Rob Goldstone was saying he had dirt on Hillary Clinton from Russia and Jr and his father were thrilled to get.any and all they could get and could care about where they came from. We'll never know what really went on during the Trump tower meeting only the bs fed to us by Trump and his cabal.

McCabe thought that Trump was acting incredibly guilty about Russia and 20 years of law enforcement experience kicked in. McCabe knew they were investigating Russia. That doesn't mean they were investigating Trump. They were investigating Russian involvement in the election. But obviously McCabe knew there were Trump connections. There is no dispute that there was...other than the swill that Trump was peddling.

Trump has been feeding the world this moronic paranoid conspiracy theory that the FBI was out to get him from the very beginning. Yet the facts show they just followed the leads. And the biggest lead of all is Trump and his behavior. As you said, Trump asked Comey multiple times if they were investigating him. If he didn't do anything wrong why is he so concerned? Then he fires Comey to halt the investigation. Then Trump undermines the investigation.

Over and over and over and over, Trump does what a guilty person would do but it's the cops problem for being suspicious? After the firing Comey, McCabe takes over and immediately Trump in his way is suggesting the McCabe should parrot Trump's lies about Comey.

Gee, you think asking a 20 year veteran police officer with an impeccable record you just met to lie is a good idea?

It comes down to this. You see, I cannot trust Trump. Because well, he's untrustworthy.

 

[smartcooky]

What a moronic and stupid CT post. Trump is a lying dishonest POS. And yet you just eat it up and go yummie. Seriously, why would you EVER believe someone who over the last 30 years has proven he is incapable of telling the truth? He screams FAKE NEWS and you eat it up. What if he said LUGENPRESSE?

You dismiss Comey a lifetime Federal Law Enforcement officer and take the word of a carnival barker? The media is all lying. The cops are all lying. The ambassadors are all lying. Trump said he didn't know the two Russians associates of Giuliani and yet they met with Trump at least 10 times. Is the press lying about that? Everyone is lying but the biggest liar of all.

What we get from Trump is disinformation diarrhea. Me, I don't eat ****.

I really don't understand your entire CT post. Rob Goldstone was saying he had dirt on Hillary Clinton from Russia and Jr and his father were thrilled to get.any and all they could get and could care about where they came from. We'll never know what really went on during the Trump tower meeting only the bs fed to us by Trump and his cabal.

McCabe thought that Trump was acting incredibly guilty about Russia and 20 years of law enforcement experience kicked in. McCabe knew they were investigating Russia. That doesn't mean they were investigating Trump. They were investigating Russian involvement in the election. But obviously McCabe knew there were Trump connections. There is no dispute that there was...other than the swill that Trump was peddling.

Trump has been feeding the world this moronic paranoid conspiracy theory that the FBI was out to get him from the very beginning. Yet the facts show they just followed the leads. And the biggest lead of all is Trump and his behavior. As you said, Trump asked Comey multiple times if they were investigating him. If he didn't do anything wrong why is he so concerned? Then he fires Comey to halt the investigation. Then Trump undermines the investigation.

Over and over and over and over, Trump does what a guilty person would do but it's the cops problem for being suspicious? After the firing Comey, McCabe takes over and immediately Trump in his way is suggesting the McCabe should parrot Trump's lies about Comey.

Gee, you think asking a 20 year veteran police officer with an impeccable record you just met to lie is a good idea?

It comes down to this. You see, I cannot trust Trump. Because well, he's untrustworthy.

Right on the money!

If Trump was 100% innocent as he claims, and the victim of a plot to overthrow him as he claims, he would welcome these investigations; he would instruct his aides and the people around him to comply with all the subpoenas and to go to Congress and testify to what a fine chap he is, and how he has done nothing wrong or illegal.

But that is not what he has done is it? He has obstructed these investigations in every possible way he can. People who obstruct investigations into themselves are de-facto displaying a consciousness of guilt in foot-high capital letters - literally screaming their guilt from the rooftops.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Mueller's defenders always say he does things "by the book".
But that depends on which book we are talking about, doesn't it?

In the case of the Report, Mueller certainly didn't take a page out of the Nixon or Clinton Impeachment investigations.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

Mueller's defenders always say he does things "by the book".
But that depends on which book we are talking about, doesn't it?

In the case of the Report, Mueller certainly didn't take a page out of the Nixon or Clinton Impeachment investigations.

Such as...?

 

[Segnosaur]

In the case of the Report, Mueller certainly didn't take a page out of the Nixon or Clinton Impeachment investigations.

Such as...?

Well for one, the Kenneth Starr (both in the media and his report into Clinton) was a lot more direct about Clinton's legal issues and how to proceed with the impeachment.

Compare that to Mueller, and his "I did not exonerate" statement, or his statement about Trump's truthfulness in his statements. If Mueller used the same tone that Starr did, he would have come right out and said "Trump committed perjury and obstructed justice."

 

[Delphic Oracle]

Well for one, the Kenneth Starr (both in the media and his report into Clinton) was a lot more direct about Clinton's legal issues and how to proceed with the impeachment.



Compare that to Mueller, and his "I did not exonerate" statement, or his statement about Trump's truthfulness in his statements. If Mueller used the same tone that Starr did, he would have come right out and said "Trump committed perjury and obstructed justice."

Remind me again what Starr was originally after and what they ended up impeaching him for.

His being super clear about it strikes me as his being super partisan about it and therefore not a standard to emulate.

Basically all of the things Trump says about Mueller are close to how I see Starr's investigation.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Mueller's defenders always say he does things "by the book".
But that depends on which book we are talking about, doesn't it?

In the case of the Report, Mueller certainly didn't take a page out of the Nixon or Clinton Impeachment investigations.

One reason could be that Nixon had a Special Prosecutor, Clinton had an Independent Counsel, and Mueller was a Special Counsel.

While similar, each of the positions is slightly different in scope and ability to recommend things.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

What a moronic and stupid CT post. Trump is a lying dishonest POS. And yet you just eat it up and go yummie. Seriously, why would you EVER believe someone who over the last 30 years has proven he is incapable of telling the truth?

Oh come on, you know why.

And try to be a little more sympathetic. Imagine going to bed each night wondering what obnoxious lies you may have to be on board with tomorrow. Defending the indefensible at every turn, so much cognitive dissonance it makes your head hurt, constantly being attacked for having the courage to support our president no matter what - but this is what it takes to be a true patriot in today's America!

 

[acbytesla]

Oh come on, you know why.

And try to be a little more sympathetic. Imagine going to bed each night wondering what obnoxious lies you may have to be on board with tomorrow. Defending the indefensible at every turn, so much cognitive dissonance it makes your head hurt, constantly being attacked for having the courage to support our president no matter what - but this is what it takes to be a true patriot in today's America!

I just can't find it in my heart to be sympathetic.

Although I guess it does look like Trump is going to win on dismantling DACA. And as much as I hate that he is doing it. I agree with the arguments his lawyers on this. Which might be a first. Usually, I'm shaking my head.

 

[varwoche]

...If this investigation fails to deliver, will you re-assess?

Do you believe that Joseph Mifsud is really a Russian agent?

You talked right past me, ignoring my question. Sorry, I don't indulge evasiveness. You answer mine and I'll be glad to answer yours.

 

[acbytesla]

Oh come on, you know why.

And try to be a little more sympathetic. Imagine going to bed each night wondering what obnoxious lies you may have to be on board with tomorrow. Defending the indefensible at every turn, so much cognitive dissonance it makes your head hurt, constantly being attacked for having the courage to support our president no matter what - but this is what it takes to be a true patriot in today's America!

I get into this same conundrum with the the religious. And I'm never satisfied with the answers. It's one thing to believe something when there is no evidence either way. But to hang on to that belief despite a mountain of evidence contradicting it has always flabbergasted me.

And maybe it's just me but I can't bear conning myself and it's worse than unbearable to say out loud what I find tenuous. I've never made up my mind whether these people really believe the nonsense or are just unwilling to face the consequence of having to deal with reality.

It's like this. I called myself a Christian for 30 years although I never really believed. There were consequences to saying I'm not a believer. So I didn't. For these people who supported Trump, I don't think they believe Trump didn't do something wrong, they just don't want to face the facts and the consequences that he did.

 

[tanabear]

What a moronic and stupid CT post. Trump is a lying dishonest POS. And yet you just eat it up and go yummie. Seriously, why would you EVER believe someone who over the last 30 years has proven he is incapable of telling the truth? He screams FAKE NEWS and you eat it up. What if he said LUGENPRESSE?

You dismiss Comey a lifetime Federal Law Enforcement officer and take the word of a carnival barker? The media is all lying. The cops are all lying. The ambassadors are all lying. Trump said he didn't know the two Russians associates of Giuliani and yet they met with Trump at least 10 times. Is the press lying about that? Everyone is lying but the biggest liar of all.

You had stated, "The man who made sure the investigations into Trump would go on after he met with Trump..."

I pointed out that, according to Jim Comey, that Trump was not personally under investigation when he was dismissed. Now instead of being appreciative of the fact that I pointed out an error in your statement, you decided to launch into another fact-free anti-Trump screed; Orangeman bad, FBI good. I've learned that Skeptoids and Leftoids don't like their bubbles burst with the Truth.

I really don't understand your entire CT post. Rob Goldstone was saying he had dirt on Hillary Clinton from Russia and Jr and his father were thrilled to get.any and all they could get and could care about where they came from. We'll never know what really went on during the Trump tower meeting only the bs fed to us by Trump and his cabal.

The Don Jr. meeting certainly does elicit a lot of faux outrage amongst the Left. But what doesn't elicit any outrage at all?

Holier-than-thou-art Adam Schiff tried to get dirt on Trump from foreign sources(Russian comedians) which he thought was real.

Caller: Yes, absolutely. And she got compromising materials on Trump after their short relations.
Schiff: Okay. And what’s the nature of the Kompromat?
Caller: Well, there were pictures of naked Trump.
Schiff: Okay. And so Putin was made aware of the availability of the comprising material?
Caller: Yes, of course...
Caller: Yes. On that meeting, Ukupnik told Flynn that all those compromising materials will never be released if Trump will cancel all the Russian sanctions.
Schiff: Okay. Well, obviously, we would welcome the chance to get copies of those recordings. So we will try to work with the FBI to figure out along with your staff how we can obtain copies of those.

Obviously no one on the Left is outraged about Deep State snake Schiff asking for kompromat on Trump from foreign sources. Neither are they outraged by the Steele dossier which has Russian sources too. But if a Republican does something like this it is treason.

McCabe thought that Trump was acting incredibly guilty about Russia and 20 years of law enforcement experience kicked in. McCabe knew they were investigating Russia. That doesn't mean they were investigating Trump. They were investigating Russian involvement in the election. But obviously McCabe knew there were Trump connections. There is no dispute that there was...other than the swill that Trump was peddling.

If McCabe thought Trump was acting guilty then his instincts weren't very good because there was no Trump-Russia collusion. And I thought we were supposed to investigate people based off evidence, not feelings?

Trump has been feeding the world this moronic paranoid conspiracy theory that the FBI was out to get him from the very beginning..

The FBI was out to get him from the beginning. Haven't you read the Lisa Page and Peter Strzok texts?

Page: “God trump is a loathsome human….omg he’s an idiot.”
“He’s awful,” Strzok replied.

Yet the facts show they just followed the leads. And the biggest lead of all is Trump and his behavior. As you said, Trump asked Comey multiple times if they were investigating him. If he didn't do anything wrong why is he so concerned? Then he fires Comey to halt the investigation. Then Trump undermines the investigation. .

What leads did they follow? The best leads to have followed would have been to simply verify the sources listed in the Steele dossier and interview them. This should have been easy as Christopher Steele was an FBI informant. Yet there is no indication they did any of this. They did not follow leads, they manufactured them.

Trump was concerned because the press was reporting on his ties to Russia. The media was creating the impression that Trump was under investigation when according to Comey, he wasn't.

The New York Times reported on March 20th 2017: F.B.I. Is Investigating Trump’s Russia Ties, Comey Confirms.

Yet Comey stated that Trump was not under investigation at the time of his dismissal. So the media is saying one thing and Comey is saying something else. Trump wanted Comey to clarify the nature of the investigation. Comey refused to do this because it wasn't an investigation. It was a coup attempt. So Comey was fired.

Over and over and over and over, Trump does what a guilty person would do but it's the cops problem for being suspicious? After the firing Comey, McCabe takes over and immediately Trump in his way is suggesting the McCabe should parrot Trump's lies about Comey.

We know this isn't true because Trump wasn't guilty. The fact that he was "acting guilty" was just more manufactured fake news.

If Trump was 100% innocent as he claims, and the victim of a plot to overthrow him as he claims, he would welcome these investigations; he would instruct his aides and the people around him to comply with all the subpoenas and to go to Congress and testify to what a fine chap he is, and how he has done nothing wrong or illegal.

But that is not what he has done is it? He has obstructed these investigations in every possible way he can. People who obstruct investigations into themselves are de-facto displaying a consciousness of guilt in foot-high capital letters - literally screaming their guilt from the rooftops.

Why should Trump welcome an investigation manufactured by his political opponents over a crime he did not commit? Can we just go around investigating anyone without probable cause? It sounds like you are advocating for a police-state society. Let's bring the full power and resources of the surveillance state and law enforcement down on our political enemies.

Also the "investigation" was not obstructed. Robert Mueller even stated this in this testimony.

 

[acbytesla]

You had stated, "The man who made sure the investigations into Trump would go on after he met with Trump..."

I pointed out that, according to Jim Comey, that Trump was not personally under investigation when he was dismissed. Now instead of being appreciative of the fact that I pointed out an error in your statement, you decided to launch into another fact-free anti-Trump screed; Orangeman bad, FBI good. I've learned that Skeptoids and Leftoids don't like their bubbles burst with the Truth.

If McCabe thought Trump was acting guilty then his instincts weren't very good because there was no Trump-Russia collusion. And I thought we were supposed to investigate people based off evidence, not feelings?

The FBI was out to get him from the beginning. Haven't you read the Lisa Page and Peter Strzok texts?

Page: “God trump is a loathsome human….omg he’s an idiot.”
“He’s awful,” Strzok replied.

What leads did they follow? The best leads to have followed would have been to simply verify the sources listed in the Steele dossier and interview them. This should have been easy as Christopher Steele was an FBI informant. Yet there is no indication they did any of this. They did not follow leads, they manufactured them.

Trump was concerned because the press was reporting on his ties to Russia. The media was creating the impression that Trump was under investigation when according to Comey, he wasn't.

The New York Times reported on March 20th 2017: F.B.I. Is Investigating Trump’s Russia Ties, Comey Confirms.

Yet Comey stated that Trump was not under investigation at the time of his dismissal. So the media is saying one thing and Comey is saying something else. Trump wanted Comey to clarify the nature of the investigation. Comey refused to do this because it wasn't an investigation. It was a coup attempt. So Comey was fired.



We know this isn't true because Trump wasn't guilty. The fact that he was "acting guilty" was just more manufactured fake news.

Why should Trump welcome an investigation manufactured by his political opponents over a crime he did not commit? Can we just go around investigating anyone without probable cause? It sounds like you are advocating for a police-state society. Let's bring the full power and resources of the surveillance state and law enforcement down on our political enemies.

Also the "investigation" was not obstructed. Robert Mueller even stated this in this testimony.

Wow! Just how many things are wong with this post. To start with. A law enforcement officer DOESN'T have to inform a suspect whether or not they are investigating him even if that suspect is the president. And it was well known that the FBI and the CIA had been investigating Russian involvement in our elections before the election. If the President did nothing wrong and the press was wrongly reporting he was being investigated, you would think he'd rather a full investigation and having the FBI announced that he had nothing to do with it. Keep in mind Comey is a Republican and not HIS political opponent. Trump most likely wouldn't even be President if not for his interference.

What is he worried about?

Also, Mueller did not find there was no collusion, only that he couldn't prove that there was. Huge difference. As for Page and Strozk, what makes you think a law enforcement officer can't dislike a suspect and still follow the evidence and the law?

 

[Aridas]

To poke at a little bit of what's so utterly wrong with your claims...

Schiff: Okay. Well, obviously, we would welcome the chance to get copies of those recordings. So we will try to work with the FBI to figure out along with your staff how we can obtain copies of those.

Funny how you ignore this very, very important thing, which gets right to the heart of the issues at hand. Schiff made it perfectly clear that he fully intended to abide by the law and work with law enforcement to make sure everything done would abide by the law. Trump made it fully clear that he had no intention of abiding by the law or working with law enforcement and, in fact, didn't abide by it. Then, of course, there's the question of who, exactly, is involved and the nature of the interaction. Was Schiff soliciting this from a foreign government, for example? Sure doesn't look like it.

Your attempted equivalence just shows that you don't know what you're talking about. Maybe, just maybe, try to understand the actual concepts in play, rather than the gross caricatures of the concepts that the GOP and Russian propagandists forward as they try to distract and distort?

The FBI was out to get him from the beginning. Haven't you read the Lisa Page and Peter Strzok texts?

Page: “God trump is a loathsome human….omg he’s an idiot.”
“He’s awful,” Strzok replied.

LOL! Perhaps you don't realize how utterly stupid this attempt at an argument is? Even before we get to the obvious cherry-picking, you're trying to claim that the personal opinion of two individuals is proof of professional misconduct by an entire agency. Professional misconduct that's in the exact opposite direction as the misconduct by the FBI that actually happened in reality.

Why should Trump welcome an investigation manufactured by his political opponents over a crime he did not commit? Can we just go around investigating anyone without probable cause? It sounds like you are advocating for a police-state society. Let's bring the full power and resources of the surveillance state and law enforcement down on our political enemies.

Ahh, the joys of Republican projection, where the weak on crime Democrats actually want a police state to attack their political enemies. Never mind that the Republicans are the ones that have been pushing police state policies and have been openly doing their best to use the judicial system to attack their enemies for brazenly political purposes. That the DOJ failed to get a grand jury to indict McCabe is quite telling there, before getting to the rest of the BS that the Republicans have been engaging in.

Also the "investigation" was not obstructed. Robert Mueller even stated this in this testimony.

Except for the parts where he made it pretty clear that it was.

Still, congratulations for actually getting me to bite at your parade of nonsense. You've confirmed yet again that you can safely be ignored, either way. Are you actually a reverse troll, though? One who's trying to make Trump supporters look like total idiots?