Mueller Report Imminent

[DC_Vol]

Sounds like two years of LG talking points.

 

[DC_Vol]

There is no way to spin this exchange as a part of any type of victory for Trump. The way conservatives are acting on here is stupid.

It never gets old poking a little fun at the manic left with their impeachment nonsense. You guys are still dealing with the fallout of a hoax...still waiting for it to magically become true.

Meanwhile, Trump has been 100% exonerated.

 

[BUBear]

Have to find the video but Trey Gowdy hammered Mueller on post analysis. Hilarious.

"The person who learned the most about the Mueller report today was Robert Mueller."

 

[Septic]

Ethically bound by what exactly?

The law, exactly.

 

[DC_Vol]

The law, exactly.

It’s too bad your “trolling” is reserved for conservatives only. There’s been some gold material happening here.

 

[Septic]

It’s too bad your “trolling” is reserved for conservatives only. There’s been some gold material happening here.

Where have I "trolled" anyone in this thread?

 

[DC_Vol]

Where have I "trolled" anyone in this thread?

Exactly my point, Sep.

 

[evillawyer]

I don't know why the Hill still uses him. He doesn't have a good track record.

From Wikipedia:

Paul McCleary, writing for the Columbia Journalism Reviewin 2007, wrote that Solomon had earned a reputation for hyping stories without solid foundation.[17] In 2012, Mariah Blake, writing for the Columbia Journalism Review, wrote that Solomon "has a history of bending the truth to his storyline," and that he "was notorious for massaging facts to conjure phantom scandals."[18] In 2007, Deborah Howell, then-ombudsman at The Washington Post criticized a story that Solomon wrote for The Post which had suggested impropriety by Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards in a real estate purchase; Solomon's reporting omitted context which would have made clear that there was no impropriety.[19] Progressive news outlets ThinkProgress, Media Matters for America and Crooked Media have argued that Solomon's reporting has a conservative bias and that there are multiple instances of inaccuracies.[20][21][22] Independent journalist Marcy Wheeler accused Solomon of manufacturing faux scandals which suggested wrongdoing by those conducting probes into Russian interference in the 2016 election.[23] Reporters who worked under Solomon as an editor have said that he encouraged them to bend the truth to fit a pre-existing narrative.[18]

In January 2018, Solomon published a report for The Hillsuggesting that Peter Strzok and Lisa Page had foreknowledge of a Wall Street Journal article and that they themselves had leaked to the Wall Street Journal.[24]According to the Huffington Post, Solomon's reporting omitted that the Wall Street Journal article Strzok and Page were discussing was critical of Hillary Clinton and the FBI, Strzok and Page expressed dismay at the fallout from the article, and Strzok and Page criticized unauthorized leaks from the FBI. According to the Huffington Post, "Solomon told HuffPost he was not authorized to speak and does not comment on his reporting. He may simply have been unaware of these three facts when he published his story. But they provide crucial context to an incomplete narrative that has been bouncing around the right-wing echo chamber all week."[24]

That same month, Erik Wemple of The Washington Postsaid that newsroom staffers at The Hill had complained about Solomon's reporting for the publication.[25] The staffers reportedly criticized Solomon's reporting as having a conservative bias and missing important context, and that this undermined The Hill's reputation.[25] They also expressed concerns over Solomon's close relationship with Sean Hannity, whose TV show he appeared on more than a dozen times over a span of three months.

 

[Septic]

Exactly my point, Sep.

Its not a very good point then. Rubbing salt in a wound or kicking folks while they're down is lazy and I try to avoid that. Instead, I prefer to make inconvenient points that challenge preconceived notions, like yours that I should pile on the low hanging fruit in this thread.

 

[0nelilreb]

This thread is funny , 3 years of what was I’m sure would qualify as one of the largest , well funded , most diverse , globally invested investigations of maybe all times , certainly of our time . One official report , One official testimony , possibly 3 -5 arrests for lying / white collar crimes ( maybe TBA) and a handful of Russians nobody has ever seen or heard about , that will never see a courtroom in the US . All of that and we still don’t have criminal charges against Trump . All of that and the only real tangible thing we have to show for it is CNN and MSNBC lost viewers and FOX gained viewers . That’s it ... nothing more , nothing less as it stands right now .

 

[Mick]

“The campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released
through Russian efforts, the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”
- Mueller Report
Did the Russians interfere? Yes. Did they want Trump to win? Yes. Did the trump campaign think the Russian interference would help them? Yes. Did they work with the Russians to do it? No.

Are you really that naive or do you require a special helmet.

 

[ajvol01]

Think about that for a second.
The president was shown to have obstructed justice, tampered with witnesses, conspired with the enemy, and been anything but forthright in his written responses.....AND THAT is considered a crushing victory.

Tells one all they need to know.

Are you serious?

 

[Orangeslice13]

Its not a very good point then. Rubbing salt in a wound or kicking folks while they're down is lazy and I try to avoid that. Instead, I prefer to make inconvenient points that challenge preconceived notions, like yours that I should pile on the low hanging fruit in this thread.

Lol at “low hanging fruit”
That is a good description for the leftest in this thread. It’s awesome on so many levels that you think it too

 

[Orangeslice13]

Are you really that naive or do you require a special helmet.

Do you consider yourself an apple or a banana?

 

[ajvol01]

There isn't enough evidence to bring charges at this time (and he is still in office - the DOJ has made it clear that they won't charge a sitting President with a crime), but that is subject to change if new evidence should arise - and after Trump has left office. If he had been acquitted of a charge following a jury trial, that charge could not be brought again, even if new evidence was to emerge (double jeopardy). A decision not to bring charges is not the same as an acquittal... I'm sure you are not really this stupid. Are you just wanting to argue for the sheer hell of it?

 

[DC_Vol]

Its not a very good point then. Rubbing salt in a wound or kicking folks while they're down is lazy and I try to avoid that. Instead, I prefer to make inconvenient points that challenge preconceived notions, like yours that I should pile on the low hanging fruit in this thread.

LOL

 

[McDad]

Can we agree the 'need for an investigation', the investigation, and the info generated has become another political tool? Nothing more.

When both sides find victory after reports and testimony you simply must conclude you're being manipulated by your "team".

 

[volfanhill]

Are you really that naive or do you require a special helmet.

I am sorry but do you have information the Special Prosecutor does not? Because if you do I think you should turn it in.

 

[AirVol]

One thing that’s very clear. Mules didn’t write the report.

Another thing, this hearing proved Nads is a joke as chairman.

 

[0nelilreb]

I am sorry but do you have information the Special Prosecutor does not? Because if you do I think you should turn it in.

He does but if he told us , he’d have to kill us all .

 

[Mick]

Can we agree the 'need for an investigation', the investigation, and the info generated has become another political tool? Nothing more.

When both sides find victory after reports and testimony you simply must conclude you're being manipulated by your "team".

Actuall the investigation highlighted a problem all Americans should be concerned with. The President and his Administration are more concerned about covering it up and stopping the investigation into Russian efforts than informing the public about it. To this day we have more Republicans pro Russia than ever before. Team Trumputin will again engage in media disinformation.

 

[RikidyBones]

Actuall the investigation highlighted a problem all Americans should be concerned with. The President and his Administration are more concerned about covering it up and stopping the investigation into Russian efforts than informing the public about it. To this day we have more Republicans pro Russia than ever before. Team Trumputin will again engage in media disinformation.

 

[Mick]

I am sorry but do you have information the Special Prosecutor does not? Because if you do I think you should turn it in.

The special Prosecutor has information we don't. Maybe we will see it when we take America back. Do you consider yourself informed about the information uncovered during the investigation? If so, you're not.

 

[1972 Grad]

Jordan from the top rope. BOOM!

 

[McDad]

Actuall the investigation highlighted a problem all Americans should be concerned with. The President and his Administration are more concerned about covering it up and stopping the investigation into Russian efforts than informing the public about it. To this day we have more Republicans pro Russia than ever before. Team Trumputin will again engage in media disinformation.

I get it. You're a true believer. I'm just trying to give all the partisans a perspective from the sidelines.

One other thing on Russia: if Russia has always been a problem and "pro Russia" American politicians a concern, why was Romney mocked when he mentioned it by the Ds and the media? He was out of touch, paranoid, unaware the cold war was over?