Political discussions about everything
By johnforbes
#117665
Without even preparing, the average person could ask 4 questions:

1) Mr. Mueller, you wanted to continue to be FBI Director, but didn't get the job, and then the next day started to investigate the person who didn't give you the job you wanted. Isn't this an enormous conflict of interest?

2) Why did you appoint as your chief deputy a guy who said he cried at the Javits Center when his candidate Hillary did not win? Wasn't he told BEFORE the start of your probe that the dossier was fake?

3) Since you learned in the first 2 months there was no collusion, why did your probe continue another 2 years before you told the world there was zero evidence of collusion?

4) Given the tens of thousands of qualified lawyers, why was every since staff lawyer you picked a partisan Democrat?
User avatar
By RealJustme
#117667
The reason the House has agreed to limit questions to what's in his report. Even then Mueller demands he be allowed to simply talk about his findings without questions. Mueller was part of the insurance policy and he's now realized he fucked up.

There's an old saying, if you go after the boss, you had better taken him out. They didn't take him out!
By Clownkicker
#117668
johnny, your ridiculous obsessive/compulsive pet peeves are not even relevant to anything.

All Mueller needs to be asked is, if Trump were not the sitting president, did your investigation uncover sufficient evidence of collusion with Russia to indict him or anyone in his campaign? And if Trump were not the sitting President, would you have indicted him for obstruction of justice?

All the rest of your silly anal retentive fixation nonsense is irrelevant.
By johnforbes
#117672
Clown, you are wrong and here is why.

The only point of a special counsel probe is to get outside the usual DoJ channels and do a neutral, credible probe.

Ken Starr didn't do that and neither did Mueller.

Mueller was NOT neutral because he had just been turned down for continuation as FBI Director. Literally the next day he got to investigate the guy who refused him a job. That is a tremendous, obvious conflict.

The other questions relate to the obvious partisan bias of the 2 year Mueller probe:

2) Why did you appoint as your chief deputy a guy who said he cried at the Javits Center when his candidate Hillary did not win? Wasn't he told BEFORE the start of your probe that the dossier was fake?

3) Since you learned in the first 2 months there was no collusion, why did your probe continue another 2 years before you told the world there was zero evidence of collusion?

4) Given the tens of thousands of qualified lawyers, why was every since staff lawyer you picked a partisan Democrat?
By Clownkicker
#117675
"The only point of a special counsel probe is to get outside the usual DoJ channels and do a neutral, credible probe."-johnfibs

johnny, you are wrong.

The purpose of a special counsel probe is to get outside the usual DoJ channels so that a President can't stop or interfere with an investigation into himself. And that's the only reason for a special counsel. If the President can fire him, then any President can commit any crime he wishes with impunity. Yes, that is the conservative dream (see Richard Nixon in the David Frost interview) but thank goodness liberals are appalled by that scenario.

That is what Republicans want because they do not care about the rule of law applying equally to everyone. Liberals want a special counsel because they believe no man is above the law.
User avatar
By RealJustme
#117676
The purpose of a special counsel probe is to get outside the usual DoJ channels so that a President can't stop or interfere with an investigation into himself.
That happened and the results "No collusion" Of course Mueller knew that within the first week of the investigation. He continued the investigation so they could spy on Trump and everyone around him in hopes of finding something damaging are to get someone to give a conflicting statement. He ended up with a big fat ZERO!

Now HE will be put under oath and his biggest fear is giving a conflicting statement during that testimony. The DOJ IG has interviewed hundreds of people many who were involved in the investigation, Mueller is on the other end now.
By Clownkicker
#117677
"That happened and the results "No collusion""-RealTool

That is just a lie from your handlers, Tool. That was not the conclusion of the investigation.

The actual conclusion of the investigation was that they had not found SUFFICIENT evidence to indict, not that there was no evidence. The report never says there was no collusion. You made it up, as is your wont.
By sillydaddy
#117678
Not that long ago the Demos were all giddy that Mueller had leverage over the President
and he was going to say "jump..!" and the President would have no choice but to say," How high..!.."

The liberal media tried to convince us that was the case …..

But to quote RealJustme.. Now HE will be put under oath and his biggest fear is giving a conflicting statement during that testimony. The DOJ IG has interviewed hundreds of people many who were involved in the investigation, Mueller is on the other end now.

Mueller, the latest victim of the "Trump curse". :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
By Clownkicker
#117681
What CHANNEL do you guys tune into? Your handlers are filling your heads with nonsense again.

Mueller isn't afraid of anything, and certainly not your idiotic "conflicting statement" which isn't going to happen.

Wake up and start thinking for yourselves for once. Your handlers are not your friends.
User avatar
By RealJustme
#117685
Mueller isn't afraid of anything, and certainly not your idiotic "conflicting statement" which isn't going to happen.
Proof Mueller is a liberal. When you have libtards getting angry while defending Mueller...even after he couldn't find anything on Trump, you know what Mueller's agenda is.

Wonder why Mueller once again backed out of testifying before the House about his investigation? Could it be he's still holding out on restrictions questions Republicans can ask that might trap him into lying under oath...like he did Flynn?
By johnforbes
#117686
You have to have a NEUTRAL investigation or there is no point in going outside the DoJ, which is run nominally by the sitting president.

Mueller was NOT neutral because he had just been turned down for continuation as FBI Director. Literally the next day he got to investigate the guy who refused him a job. That is a tremendous, obvious conflict.

The other questions relate to the obvious partisan bias of the 2 year Mueller probe:

2) Why did you appoint as your chief deputy a guy who said he cried at the Javits Center when his candidate Hillary did not win? Wasn't he told BEFORE the start of your probe that the dossier was fake?

3) Since you learned in the first 2 months there was no collusion, why did your probe continue another 2 years before you told the world there was zero evidence of collusion?

4) Given the tens of thousands of qualified lawyers, why was every since staff lawyer you picked a partisan Democrat?
By johnforbes
#117687
By the way, Clown was saying the same thing as me in different words.

When he said you don't want the president to interfere with the probe, what he meant was what I said -- you don't want the president's AG to interfere with the probe or bias it.

Alas, neither Starr nor Mueller happened to be neutral.
By Clownkicker
#117690
No, I was not saying the same thing as you, johnny. I said the President shouldn't be immune to investigation as Republicans like Nixon believe. You said you wanted Republicans on the investigation, which would have been not one iota more "neutral" than the team Mueller had. The fantasy 50% of 'Democrats' on your dream team would have been looking for exactly the same stuff the alleged 100% were looking for, which is evidence of a crime. The only difference would have been that you would have had half as many people working to investigate the crimes so it would have taken twice as long.

No investigation will ever be more "neutral" than humans are capable of. If there were Republicans on the team leaking material, that wouldn't have been neutral either.

But the bottom line is there is evidence or there isn't evidence. If it takes a team that's out to get someone to find the evidence on that person, then so be it. If he broke no laws, he has nothing to worry about.

But the one thing there is no doubt about, as the Mueller report shows, Trump obstructed justice multiple times.
User avatar
By RealJustme
#117700
I said the President shouldn't be immune to investigation as Republicans like Nixon believe.
Clown, you must have been asleep for the last 3 years, Trump was placed under investigation by the entire federal government and Congress the day he won the Republican nomination to run against Hillary. None of them found anything, all of them ended with no charges. To say Trump has been immune to investigation is really stupid. :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
By johnforbes
#117717
Even considering how low Clownslacker has set the bar -- that is, so low even a snake could not limbo under it -- his remark was doltish.
By Clownkicker
#117728
" To say Trump has been immune to investigation is really stupid. :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:"-RealTool

It sure is. It's a good thing nobody here ever said it, isn't it, Tool?
What I said was that "the President shouldn't be immune to investigation" which is true. He shouldn't. Do you disagree? I await the chirping crickets on that one. :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

And I never said Trump COULDN'T be investigated either, did I? I didn't say he was immune FROM investigation, as you are pretending I said. I said if he is allowed to obstruct justice with impunity, then he would be immune to investigation because he could stop the investigation from being completed, as Trump tried to do. And he would never be impeached as he might be with a completed investigation.

ESL classes, Tool, ESL classes, please. The sooner the better. They will keep you from looking like an utter buffoon the way you do now.
By Clownkicker
#117729
Could someone explain to me why johnforbes keeps stopping in to tell us he's got nothing?

He does it over and over and over. He can never seem to argue his position on any topic. He just makes idiotic, unsupported, doltish pronouncements.
User avatar
By RealJustme
#117734
What I said was that "the President shouldn't be immune to investigation
Clown what makes you think the most investigated President in history is immune to investigations?
By johnforbes
#117773
Clown is correct that my remarks are semper spontaneous.

To recap:

You have to have a NEUTRAL investigation or there is no point in going outside the DoJ, which is run nominally by the sitting president.

Mueller was NOT neutral because he had just been turned down for continuation as FBI Director. Literally the next day he got to investigate the guy who refused him a job. That is a tremendous, obvious conflict.

The other questions relate to the obvious partisan bias of the 2 year Mueller probe:

2) Why did you appoint as your chief deputy a guy who said he cried at the Javits Center when his candidate Hillary did not win? Wasn't he told BEFORE the start of your probe that the dossier was fake?

3) Since you learned in the first 2 months there was no collusion, why did your probe continue another 2 years before you told the world there was zero evidence of collusion?

4) Given the tens of thousands of qualified lawyers, why was every since staff lawyer you picked a partisan Democrat?
By johnforbes
#117802
Clown has asked why I keep stopping by.

Well, first of all, I look ever day for this elusive "Internet" people keep mentioning.

Secondly, to put a ray of sunshine into Clowntoker's gray, dreary socialist Weltanschauung.
8th Amendment

Well , if Trump over-valued his properties .... an[…]

Committee Suppressed

AGAIN AGAIN, what johnforbes is trying to say once[…]

See? I told you johnforbes had no justification fo[…]

After Stewart slammed Trump, which showed Stewart […]

The Best Man for the Job?

Surprisingly, Scientific American has leaned to th[…]

Mr Forbes does have the strength of a machine. An[…]

Had Kamala been an apple/tomato/cherry/peach pick[…]

8th Amendment

We have all been wondering, in the context of the […]