Will You Accept the Findings of the Muller Probe?

[Joe Bagadonuts]

You've changed the goalposts again. There's a difference between 'he did things that are not acceptable in his private sphere' and 'his investigation was unprofessional'. Evidence of the former is not evidence of the latter. You can try to bang someone else without risking your job.

I have not changed the goalposts. We discovered that an investigator admitted in private conversations that he had ulterior motives for participating in an investigation. He had a goal in mind for the outcome. That's not how it's supposed to work. That is not what we, the people, hire government bureaucrats to do. He should not have been involved in this investigation. His texts make it obvious.

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

Trump is the ocean. His hurricanes are giving you the baths you need.

Trump is made of mud. Don't get into a mud fight with him.

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

If you haven't understood what his version of "witch hunt" "hoax" and "no collusion" mean, perhaps you deserve a totalitarian leader.

Oh, I get it. When Trump says something we are supposed to read between the lines. When his opponents say something all we can do is take them at their word.

 

[One Brow]

I have not changed the goalposts. We discovered that an investigator admitted in private conversations that he had ulterior motives for participating in an investigation. He had a goal in mind for the outcome. That's not how it's supposed to work.

Yet, that is how it works, day after day, in investigative establishments all over the world. They form a hypothesis, get leads, and follow them with the intent of getting a result. When that result doesn't pan out, they form another hypothesis and try to confirm that.

 

[Harambe]

Oh, I get it. When Trump says something we are supposed to read between the lines. When his opponents say something all we can do is take them at their word.

I'm really tired of this ****. Yes, there's a lot of posturing. But regardless of investigations came out of D, R, I, G, NAMBLA, ASPCA, NCLU, MMA, HTZ, or JRE, reasonable concerns aren't fabricated out of thin air by man-bear-dragon-pigs that fly, breathe fire, and time travel. Stop pretending it has.

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

Yet, that is how it works, day after day, in investigative establishments all over the world. They form a hypothesis, get leads, and follow them with the intent of getting a result. When that result doesn't pan out, they form another hypothesis and try to confirm that.

“I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy’s office – that there’s no way he gets elected – but I’m afraid we can’t take the risk. It’s like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you’re 40,” Strzok texted Page.
When these are the types of hypothesis our investigators are coming up with we need new investigators.

 

[One Brow]

“I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy’s office – that there’s no way he gets elected – but I’m afraid we can’t take the risk. It’s like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you’re 40,” Strzok texted Page.
When these are the types of hypothesis our investigators are coming up with we need new investigators.

That wan't a hypothesis, and so far you've come up empty on any sort of professional misconduct.

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

I'm really tired of this ****. Yes, there's a lot of posturing. But regardless of investigations came out of D, R, I, G, NAMBLA, ASPCA, NCLU, MMA, HTZ, or JRE, reasonable concerns aren't fabricated out of thin air by man-bear-dragon-pigs that fly, breathe fire, and time travel. Stop pretending it has.

Were you paying any attention to the conversation my comments were in response to?

 

[Hotdog]

Yet, that is how it works, day after day, in investigative establishments all over the world. They form a hypothesis, get leads, and follow them with the intent of getting a result. When that result doesn't pan out, they form another hypothesis and try to confirm that.

Thats not how its supposed to work though. They started out with the conclusion and have worked their way backwards. Even went as far as setting people up. They aren't following the evidence.

People are presumed innocent. Not the other way around.

Its as simple as this. Trump opened his mouth and said stupid things about asking Russia to help. The Dems saw that as an opportunity to pin a conspiracy on him, and drag his name through the mud. Its dirty politics. Thats all that is going on here. Its plain as day to see.

If there were evidence to convict Trump of a crime Muller would have said so. There never was and the Dems who set this up knew there wasn't. They politicized the DOJ and FBI and now ironically are mad that Trump is doing the same thing.

We should all be ashamed of all of it. Instead you clowns willfully go along with the crap the Dems are doing, forcing regular people to take sides with someone who we might not normally side with. Your stupidity is pushing the country to a 2nd term for Trump.

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

That wan't a hypothesis, and so far you've come up empty on any sort of professional misconduct.

You are the one who said that the texts were various hypotheses. I was being facetious based on your claim. If you were being investigated and discovered that the investigator was having private conversations about you of the nature that Strozk was having I'm confident that you'd have a problem with it. You would be able to see that he shouldn't be on your case, and I would agree.

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

Thats not how its supposed to work though. They started out with the conclusion and have worked their way backwards. Even went as far as setting people up. They aren't following the evidence.

People are presumed innocent. Not the other way around.

Its as simple as this. Trump opened his mouth and said stupid things about asking Russia to help. The Dems saw that as an opportunity to pin a conspiracy on him, and drag his name through the mud. Its dirty politics. Thats all that is going on here. Its plain as day to see.

If there were evidence to convict Trump of a crime Muller would have said so. There never was and the Dems who set this up knew there wasn't. They politicized the DOJ and FBI and now ironically are mad that Trump is doing the same thing.

We should all be ashamed of all of it. Instead you clowns willfully go along with the crap the Dems are doing, forcing regular people to take sides with someone who we might not normally side with. Your stupidity is pushing the country to a 2nd term for Trump.

^Truth

 

[Harambe]

Were you paying any attention to the conversation my comments were in response to?

I read most of your posts. I try not to respond, as although in a different class than Hack, NAOS, or DutchRudder, you're still pretty one sided. But as it turns out, I'm out of ****s today.

 

[Hotdog]

I read most of your posts. I try not to respond, as although in a different class than Hack, NAOS, or DutchRudder, you're still pretty one sided. But as it turns out, I'm out of ****s today.

Dang. Hard core bro.

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

I read most of your posts. I try not to respond, as although in a different class than Hack, NAOS, or DutchRudder, you're still pretty one sided. But as it turns out, I'm out of ****s today.

Thriller threw out the genius claim that he hadn't heard any Dems worrying about what the Barr investigation might uncover as evidence they weren't worried about it in that sense (apparently we're supposed to believe the Dem's worry is that transparency is a threat to national security and that the investigation is actually an attempt to distract). I, facetiously, threw out the claim that I hadn't heard Trump worry about what the Mueller investigation might uncover (because I know that only a fool would tell an investigator that they have something to hide). You explained to me that I was failing to read between the lines of Trump statements. I, facetiously, said that I forgot that we are supposed to read between the lines with regard to Trump but not his enemies (since I assumed you were joining in on the existing conversation). Apparently you were trying to take the conversation in some different direction. Oh well.

 

[LogGrad98]

Lmao.

Cmon guy.

You keep trying that.

If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck...

Shoot it?

 

[Harambe]

Thriller threw out the genius claim that he hadn't heard any Dems worrying about what the Barr investigation might uncover as evidence they weren't worried about it in that sense (apparently we're supposed to believe the Dem's worry is that transparency is a threat to national security and that the investigation is actually an attempt to distract). I, facetiously, threw out the claim that I hadn't heard Trump worry about what the Mueller investigation might uncover (because I know that only a fool would tell an investigator that they have something to hide). You explained to me that I was failing to read between the lines of Trump statements. I, facetiously, said that I forgot that we are supposed to read between the lines with regard to Trump but not his enemies (since I assumed you were joining in on the existing conversation). Apparently you were trying to take the conversation in some different direction. Oh well.

This part of your post is important. Yes, I did try to steer the conversation away from posturing. I gathered that you were over-reacting on purpose, but even doing that is throwing partisanship. Rather than calling out based on far left/far right(which you don't understand), I tried to use an absolute value(non-partisan victim-hood illustrated by posturing either direction).

You simply didn't catch what I was throwing.

 

[fishonjazz]

I haven't heard Trump worry about what the Dems will "uncover" either. Guess we ought to just drop that investigation as well.

Is that why he obstructed the investigation every chance he got? Cause he wasn't worried?

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app

 

[One Brow]

Thats not how its supposed to work though. They started out with the conclusion and have worked their way backwards.

Like pretty much any other investigation, as long as you replace "conclusion" with "hypothesis".

Even went as far as setting people up. They aren't following the evidence.

Setting up who, how?

People are presumed innocent. Not the other way around.

If everyone is innocent in the eyes of the investigator, there is no need for an investigation. Don't confuse a trial standard with investigatory protocols.

Its as simple as this. Trump opened his mouth and said stupid things about asking Russia to help. The Dems saw that as an opportunity to pin a conspiracy on him, and drag his name through the mud. Its dirty politics. Thats all that is going on here. Its plain as day to see.

Well before Trump opened his mouth, George Papadopoulos did, and that kicked off the investigation.

If there were evidence to convict Trump of a crime Muller would have said so.

Mueller says the opposite. He says it would be unfair to accuse Trump when Trump could not indicted and acquitted.

There never was and the Dems who set this up knew there wasn't. They politicized the DOJ and FBI and now ironically are mad that Trump is doing the same thing.

f they feed you a lie long enough, and the lie is pleasing enough, truth ceases to matter.

We should all be ashamed of all of it. Instead you clowns willfully go along with the crap the Dems are doing, forcing regular people to take sides with someone who we might not normally side with. Your stupidity is pushing the country to a 2nd term for Trump.

I stand by the Mueller report. Do you?

 

[One Brow]

You are the one who said that the texts were various hypotheses.

No, I said investigators form hypotheses. I never claimed those texts as such.

If you were being investigated and discovered that the investigator was having private conversations about you of the nature that Strozk was having I'm confident that you'd have a problem with it. You would be able to see that he shouldn't be on your case, and I would agree.

I agree that if Strozk's boss knew about the texts, he should have been removed. However, that is not proof of misconduct.

 

[Joe Bagadonuts]

This part of your post is important. Yes, I did try to steer the conversation away from posturing. I gathered that you were over-reacting on purpose, but even doing that is throwing partisanship. Rather than calling out based on far left/far right(which you don't understand), I tried to use an absolute value(non-partisan victim-hood illustrated by posturing either direction).

You simply didn't catch what I was throwing.

Interesting. I have seen you as hyper-partisan from way back, so much so that I had mostly quit reading your posts, but based on your claims here I will start reading them again to see if you are actually practicing what you are preaching.