(12-04-2017 03:07 PM)TechRocks Wrote:  Actually, you've made two claims. 1) Mueller's team doesn't leak, and 2) Gowdy has no evidence.

So far you've backed up, well, zero.

There has been no evidence of Mueller leaking. Prove me wrong.

EDIT: and let me be clear, I COULD be wrong, I have just seen no evidence through any of my searches. If anyone has anything saying otherwise, by all means, present it. I would think with as much self-congratulatory nonsense about how wrong I was, you guys would actually have some evidence to support that. Then again, I know you don't.

(12-04-2017 02:58 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(12-04-2017 01:17 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(12-04-2017 12:00 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(12-04-2017 11:49 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(12-04-2017 11:38 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  Uh huh, lets not act as if I said there had literally not been a single leak. That would have warranted this, but I get that you need a victory whenever you can.

Who said this then?

Quote:We don't know everything they know, because it's a properly run investigation full of professionals who don't leak.

But didn’t mean to “imply”.

Well of course not. Stated it with conviction instead

El O El...

Where’s that angry stickman hammering the keyboard meme.

Fits this perfectly.

Too freaking funny.

It's too easy. Not even sporting anymore to expose his false statements. He just lays then out there on a silver platter.

I mean even the little retard kid who lives next to my uncle eventually learned not to piss on the electric fence. UCF just keep walking up and whizzing away. Either stupid or a sado-masochist. Maybe both.

Where is the evidence that I was wrong? Gowdy had no evidence that it was Mueller, plenty of other people are involved with Grand Juries, why are we talking about it as if we know it was him or his team?

If you have actual evidence, provide it. If not, want to retract that statement?

Evidence that the Mueller team has leaks? Let's go back to the June 15 Washington Post.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/nat...7354adbcf5

Quote:The special counsel overseeing the investigation into Russia’s role in the 2016 election is interviewing senior intelligence officials as part of a widening probe that now includes an examination of whether President Trump attempted to obstruct justice, officials said.

The move by special counsel Robert S. Mueller III to investigate Trump’s conduct marks a major turning point in the nearly year-old FBI investigation, which until recently focused on Russian meddling during the presidential campaign and on whether there was any coordination between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin. Investigators have also been looking for any evidence of possible financial crimes among Trump associates, officials said.

Quote:Five people briefed on the interview requests, speaking on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the matter publicly, said that Daniel Coats, the current director of national intelligence, Mike Rogers, head of the National Security Agency, and Rogers’s recently departed deputy, Richard Ledgett, agreed to be interviewed by Mueller’s investigators as early as this week. The investigation has been cloaked in secrecy, and it is unclear how many others have been questioned by the FBI.

This was long before the grand just was seated.

(12-04-2017 03:30 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(12-04-2017 03:07 PM)TechRocks Wrote:  Actually, you've made two claims. 1) Mueller's team doesn't leak, and 2) Gowdy has no evidence.

So far you've backed up, well, zero.

There has been no evidence of Mueller leaking. Prove me wrong.

I don't have to, I didn't make that claim. You claimed his team was professional and "don't leak". I said someone disagreed with you and posted a link to the article about Gowdy......and asked you if Gowdy was wrong, or lying. You've never answered.

Instead you first write a manifesto about what you really meant, and now change the subject.

So I ask again. Which is it? Gowdy is wrong, or Gowdy is lying?

(12-04-2017 03:30 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(12-04-2017 03:07 PM)TechRocks Wrote:  Actually, you've made two claims. 1) Mueller's team doesn't leak, and 2) Gowdy has no evidence.

So far you've backed up, well, zero.

There has been no evidence of Mueller leaking. Prove me wrong.

EDIT: and let me be clear, I COULD be wrong, I have just seen no evidence through any of my searches. If anyone has anything saying otherwise, by all means, present it. I would think with as much self-congratulatory nonsense about how wrong I was, you guys would actually have some evidence to support that. Then again, I know you don't.

https://gowdyforms.house.gov/forms/writeyourrep/

Write him and ask him instead of making a fool of yourself here.

(12-04-2017 03:30 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(12-04-2017 02:58 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(12-04-2017 01:17 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(12-04-2017 12:00 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(12-04-2017 11:49 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  Who said this then?

But didn’t mean to “imply”.

Well of course not. Stated it with conviction instead

El O El...

Where’s that angry stickman hammering the keyboard meme.

Fits this perfectly.

Too freaking funny.

It's too easy. Not even sporting anymore to expose his false statements. He just lays then out there on a silver platter.

I mean even the little retard kid who lives next to my uncle eventually learned not to piss on the electric fence. UCF just keep walking up and whizzing away. Either stupid or a sado-masochist. Maybe both.

Where is the evidence that I was wrong? Gowdy had no evidence that it was Mueller, plenty of other people are involved with Grand Juries, why are we talking about it as if we know it was him or his team?

If you have actual evidence, provide it. If not, want to retract that statement?

Evidence that the Mueller team has leaks? Let's go back to the June 15 Washington Post.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/nat...7354adbcf5

Quote:The special counsel overseeing the investigation into Russia’s role in the 2016 election is interviewing senior intelligence officials as part of a widening probe that now includes an examination of whether President Trump attempted to obstruct justice, officials said.

The move by special counsel Robert S. Mueller III to investigate Trump’s conduct marks a major turning point in the nearly year-old FBI investigation, which until recently focused on Russian meddling during the presidential campaign and on whether there was any coordination between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin. Investigators have also been looking for any evidence of possible financial crimes among Trump associates, officials said.

Quote:Five people briefed on the interview requests, speaking on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the matter publicly, said that Daniel Coats, the current director of national intelligence, Mike Rogers, head of the National Security Agency, and Rogers’s recently departed deputy, Richard Ledgett, agreed to be interviewed by Mueller’s investigators as early as this week. The investigation has been cloaked in secrecy, and it is unclear how many others have been questioned by the FBI.

This was long before the grand just was seated.

So, again, the leak occurred when the investigation involved others people outside of the investigation. Could have been Muellers team, but then why aren't there any leaks when no one else is involved?

(12-04-2017 03:37 PM)TechRocks Wrote:  

(12-04-2017 03:30 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(12-04-2017 03:07 PM)TechRocks Wrote:  Actually, you've made two claims. 1) Mueller's team doesn't leak, and 2) Gowdy has no evidence.

So far you've backed up, well, zero.

There has been no evidence of Mueller leaking. Prove me wrong.

EDIT: and let me be clear, I COULD be wrong, I have just seen no evidence through any of my searches. If anyone has anything saying otherwise, by all means, present it. I would think with as much self-congratulatory nonsense about how wrong I was, you guys would actually have some evidence to support that. Then again, I know you don't.

https://gowdyforms.house.gov/forms/writeyourrep/

Write him and ask him instead of making a fool of yourself here.

Will do! Until then, a lack of any supporting evidence saying Mueller leaked means the most defensible position is that he doesn't leak, yes? Good.

(12-04-2017 03:42 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(12-04-2017 03:37 PM)TechRocks Wrote:  

(12-04-2017 03:30 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(12-04-2017 03:07 PM)TechRocks Wrote:  Actually, you've made two claims. 1) Mueller's team doesn't leak, and 2) Gowdy has no evidence.

So far you've backed up, well, zero.

There has been no evidence of Mueller leaking. Prove me wrong.

EDIT: and let me be clear, I COULD be wrong, I have just seen no evidence through any of my searches. If anyone has anything saying otherwise, by all means, present it. I would think with as much self-congratulatory nonsense about how wrong I was, you guys would actually have some evidence to support that. Then again, I know you don't.

https://gowdyforms.house.gov/forms/writeyourrep/

Write him and ask him instead of making a fool of yourself here.

Will do! Until then, a lack of any supporting evidence saying Mueller leaked means the most defensible position is that he doesn't leak, yes? Good.

STFU about it already and write the man.

(12-04-2017 03:39 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(12-04-2017 03:30 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(12-04-2017 02:58 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(12-04-2017 01:17 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(12-04-2017 12:00 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  But didn’t mean to “imply”.

Well of course not. Stated it with conviction instead

El O El...

Where’s that angry stickman hammering the keyboard meme.

Fits this perfectly.

Too freaking funny.

It's too easy. Not even sporting anymore to expose his false statements. He just lays then out there on a silver platter.

I mean even the little retard kid who lives next to my uncle eventually learned not to piss on the electric fence. UCF just keep walking up and whizzing away. Either stupid or a sado-masochist. Maybe both.

Where is the evidence that I was wrong? Gowdy had no evidence that it was Mueller, plenty of other people are involved with Grand Juries, why are we talking about it as if we know it was him or his team?

If you have actual evidence, provide it. If not, want to retract that statement?

Evidence that the Mueller team has leaks? Let's go back to the June 15 Washington Post.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/nat...7354adbcf5

Quote:The special counsel overseeing the investigation into Russia’s role in the 2016 election is interviewing senior intelligence officials as part of a widening probe that now includes an examination of whether President Trump attempted to obstruct justice, officials said.

The move by special counsel Robert S. Mueller III to investigate Trump’s conduct marks a major turning point in the nearly year-old FBI investigation, which until recently focused on Russian meddling during the presidential campaign and on whether there was any coordination between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin. Investigators have also been looking for any evidence of possible financial crimes among Trump associates, officials said.

Quote:Five people briefed on the interview requests, speaking on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the matter publicly, said that Daniel Coats, the current director of national intelligence, Mike Rogers, head of the National Security Agency, and Rogers’s recently departed deputy, Richard Ledgett, agreed to be interviewed by Mueller’s investigators as early as this week. The investigation has been cloaked in secrecy, and it is unclear how many others have been questioned by the FBI.

This was long before the grand just was seated.

So, again, the leak occurred when the investigation involved others people outside of the investigation. Could have been Muellers team, but then why aren't there any leaks when no one else is involved?

The only people who should have known the subjects of a supposed secret investigation at that point are:
A. The investigative team

and

B. The subjects themselves

And B. wouldn't know of anyone's involvement but their own. Anyone else having knowledge of the investigation had to have gotten it from either A or B, and wouldn't have got the entire story from B. as printed.

You don't need involvement from any outside entity to do interviews. Just your team, the subject you want to interview, and their legal counsel.

Them's the facts.

(12-04-2017 03:44 PM)TechRocks Wrote:  

(12-04-2017 03:42 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(12-04-2017 03:37 PM)TechRocks Wrote:  

(12-04-2017 03:30 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(12-04-2017 03:07 PM)TechRocks Wrote:  Actually, you've made two claims. 1) Mueller's team doesn't leak, and 2) Gowdy has no evidence.

So far you've backed up, well, zero.

There has been no evidence of Mueller leaking. Prove me wrong.

EDIT: and let me be clear, I COULD be wrong, I have just seen no evidence through any of my searches. If anyone has anything saying otherwise, by all means, present it. I would think with as much self-congratulatory nonsense about how wrong I was, you guys would actually have some evidence to support that. Then again, I know you don't.

https://gowdyforms.house.gov/forms/writeyourrep/

Write him and ask him instead of making a fool of yourself here.

Will do! Until then, a lack of any supporting evidence saying Mueller leaked means the most defensible position is that he doesn't leak, yes? Good.

STFU about it already and write the man.

Awww, poor little guy is getting all upset because he knows his entire argument is nonsense. It's ok, you'll fit in around here.

It's being reported that the FBI agent that interviewed Flynn was the one who got reassigned due to his Anti Trump text message.

Fruit of the poisonous tree?

(12-04-2017 03:47 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(12-04-2017 03:39 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(12-04-2017 03:30 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(12-04-2017 02:58 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(12-04-2017 01:17 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

It's too easy. Not even sporting anymore to expose his false statements. He just lays then out there on a silver platter.

I mean even the little retard kid who lives next to my uncle eventually learned not to piss on the electric fence. UCF just keep walking up and whizzing away. Either stupid or a sado-masochist. Maybe both.

Where is the evidence that I was wrong? Gowdy had no evidence that it was Mueller, plenty of other people are involved with Grand Juries, why are we talking about it as if we know it was him or his team?

If you have actual evidence, provide it. If not, want to retract that statement?

Evidence that the Mueller team has leaks? Let's go back to the June 15 Washington Post.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/nat...7354adbcf5

Quote:The special counsel overseeing the investigation into Russia’s role in the 2016 election is interviewing senior intelligence officials as part of a widening probe that now includes an examination of whether President Trump attempted to obstruct justice, officials said.

The move by special counsel Robert S. Mueller III to investigate Trump’s conduct marks a major turning point in the nearly year-old FBI investigation, which until recently focused on Russian meddling during the presidential campaign and on whether there was any coordination between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin. Investigators have also been looking for any evidence of possible financial crimes among Trump associates, officials said.

Quote:Five people briefed on the interview requests, speaking on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the matter publicly, said that Daniel Coats, the current director of national intelligence, Mike Rogers, head of the National Security Agency, and Rogers’s recently departed deputy, Richard Ledgett, agreed to be interviewed by Mueller’s investigators as early as this week. The investigation has been cloaked in secrecy, and it is unclear how many others have been questioned by the FBI.

This was long before the grand just was seated.

So, again, the leak occurred when the investigation involved others people outside of the investigation. Could have been Muellers team, but then why aren't there any leaks when no one else is involved?

The only people who should have known the subjects of a supposed secret investigation at that point are:
A. The investigative team

and

B. The subjects themselves

And B. wouldn't know of anyone's involvement but their own. Anyone else having knowledge of the investigation had to have gotten it from either A or B, and wouldn't have got the entire story from B. as printed.

You don't need involvement from any outside entity to do interviews. Just your team, the subject you want to interview, and their legal counsel.

Them's the facts.

no way he digests that one without throwing a rod.

(12-04-2017 03:57 PM)EagleX Wrote:  

(12-04-2017 03:47 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(12-04-2017 03:39 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(12-04-2017 03:30 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(12-04-2017 02:58 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  Where is the evidence that I was wrong? Gowdy had no evidence that it was Mueller, plenty of other people are involved with Grand Juries, why are we talking about it as if we know it was him or his team?

If you have actual evidence, provide it. If not, want to retract that statement?

Evidence that the Mueller team has leaks? Let's go back to the June 15 Washington Post.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/nat...7354adbcf5

Quote:The special counsel overseeing the investigation into Russia’s role in the 2016 election is interviewing senior intelligence officials as part of a widening probe that now includes an examination of whether President Trump attempted to obstruct justice, officials said.

The move by special counsel Robert S. Mueller III to investigate Trump’s conduct marks a major turning point in the nearly year-old FBI investigation, which until recently focused on Russian meddling during the presidential campaign and on whether there was any coordination between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin. Investigators have also been looking for any evidence of possible financial crimes among Trump associates, officials said.

Quote:Five people briefed on the interview requests, speaking on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the matter publicly, said that Daniel Coats, the current director of national intelligence, Mike Rogers, head of the National Security Agency, and Rogers’s recently departed deputy, Richard Ledgett, agreed to be interviewed by Mueller’s investigators as early as this week. The investigation has been cloaked in secrecy, and it is unclear how many others have been questioned by the FBI.

This was long before the grand just was seated.

So, again, the leak occurred when the investigation involved others people outside of the investigation. Could have been Muellers team, but then why aren't there any leaks when no one else is involved?

The only people who should have known the subjects of a supposed secret investigation at that point are:
A. The investigative team

and

B. The subjects themselves

And B. wouldn't know of anyone's involvement but their own. Anyone else having knowledge of the investigation had to have gotten it from either A or B, and wouldn't have got the entire story from B. as printed.

You don't need involvement from any outside entity to do interviews. Just your team, the subject you want to interview, and their legal counsel.

Them's the facts.

no way he digests that one without throwing a rod.

You seem very certain of this, what exactly are you basing your knowledge of the process of pre-grand jury interviews on?

(12-04-2017 03:48 PM)solohawks Wrote:  It's being reported that the FBI agent that interviewed Flynn was the one who got reassigned due to his Anti Trump text message.

Fruit of the poisonous tree?

That's not how that principle works.

(12-04-2017 07:55 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(12-04-2017 03:57 PM)EagleX Wrote:  

(12-04-2017 03:47 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(12-04-2017 03:39 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(12-04-2017 03:30 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  Evidence that the Mueller team has leaks? Let's go back to the June 15 Washington Post.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/nat...7354adbcf5



This was long before the grand just was seated.

So, again, the leak occurred when the investigation involved others people outside of the investigation. Could have been Muellers team, but then why aren't there any leaks when no one else is involved?

The only people who should have known the subjects of a supposed secret investigation at that point are:
A. The investigative team

and

B. The subjects themselves

And B. wouldn't know of anyone's involvement but their own. Anyone else having knowledge of the investigation had to have gotten it from either A or B, and wouldn't have got the entire story from B. as printed.

You don't need involvement from any outside entity to do interviews. Just your team, the subject you want to interview, and their legal counsel.

Them's the facts.

no way he digests that one without throwing a rod.

You seem very certain of this, what exactly are you basing your knowledge of the process of pre-grand jury interviews on?

As has been already stated the leaks about the five subjects of the investigation were BEFORE (get the adult who explained priorities from the other thread to you to explain what before means) the granted was seated so unless there is a psychic on the panel the grand jury couldn't have leaked this.

(12-04-2017 08:01 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(12-04-2017 07:55 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(12-04-2017 03:57 PM)EagleX Wrote:  

(12-04-2017 03:47 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(12-04-2017 03:39 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  So, again, the leak occurred when the investigation involved others people outside of the investigation. Could have been Muellers team, but then why aren't there any leaks when no one else is involved?

The only people who should have known the subjects of a supposed secret investigation at that point are:
A. The investigative team

and

B. The subjects themselves

And B. wouldn't know of anyone's involvement but their own. Anyone else having knowledge of the investigation had to have gotten it from either A or B, and wouldn't have got the entire story from B. as printed.

You don't need involvement from any outside entity to do interviews. Just your team, the subject you want to interview, and their legal counsel.

Them's the facts.

no way he digests that one without throwing a rod.

You seem very certain of this, what exactly are you basing your knowledge of the process of pre-grand jury interviews on?

As has been already stated the leaks about the five subjects of the investigation were BEFORE (get the adult who explained priorities from the other thread to you to explain what before means) the granted was seated so unless there is a psychic on the panel the grand jury couldn't have leaked this.

lol what exactly do you think the prefix "pre" means?

My question is an genuine one. You seem very certain about the amount of people involved in this process, why? I've never been involved in an interview with a special counsel, I doubt you have either, so how are you so certain it's Mueller calling up these people being interviewed, and no one else being involved?

(12-04-2017 07:58 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(12-04-2017 03:48 PM)solohawks Wrote:  It's being reported that the FBI agent that interviewed Flynn was the one who got reassigned due to his Anti Trump text message.

Fruit of the poisonous tree?

That's not how that principle works.

Not in the most technical legal sense., but this is a politically motivated investigation. Appearances are everything and this shoots the appearance of impartially out the water.

How can team Mueller say with a straight face he is not on a political mission when his lead investigator is showing bias. That will effect his judgement rendering evidence he has compiled suspect

(12-04-2017 08:17 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(12-04-2017 07:58 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(12-04-2017 03:48 PM)solohawks Wrote:  It's being reported that the FBI agent that interviewed Flynn was the one who got reassigned due to his Anti Trump text message.

Fruit of the poisonous tree?

That's not how that principle works.

Not in the most technical legal sense., but this is a politically motivated investigation. Appearances are everything and this shoots the appearance of impartially out the water.

How can team Mueller say with a straight face he is not on a political mission when his lead investigator is showing bias. That will effect his judgement rendering evidence he has compiled suspect

Not in any sense.

And I'd argue Mueller decisively removing this person from the investigation is a clear sign they take any appearance of impropriety seriously. What I find weird is that it seems like some Trump supporters think only Trump supporters should be able to investigate Trump. That's not how this works.

(12-04-2017 08:17 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(12-04-2017 07:58 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(12-04-2017 03:48 PM)solohawks Wrote:  It's being reported that the FBI agent that interviewed Flynn was the one who got reassigned due to his Anti Trump text message.

Fruit of the poisonous tree?

That's not how that principle works.

Not in the most technical legal sense., but this is a politically motivated investigation. Appearances are everything and this shoots the appearance of impartially out the water.

How can team Mueller say with a straight face he is not on a political mission when his lead investigator is showing bias. That will effect his judgement rendering evidence he has compiled suspect

Flynn may well have grounds to overturn the guilty plea. The Hillary FBI agent did his interview. https://www.hannity.com/content/2017-12-...ike-flynn/

(12-04-2017 08:12 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(12-04-2017 08:01 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(12-04-2017 07:55 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(12-04-2017 03:57 PM)EagleX Wrote:  

(12-04-2017 03:47 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  The only people who should have known the subjects of a supposed secret investigation at that point are:
A. The investigative team

and

B. The subjects themselves

And B. wouldn't know of anyone's involvement but their own. Anyone else having knowledge of the investigation had to have gotten it from either A or B, and wouldn't have got the entire story from B. as printed.

You don't need involvement from any outside entity to do interviews. Just your team, the subject you want to interview, and their legal counsel.

Them's the facts.

no way he digests that one without throwing a rod.

You seem very certain of this, what exactly are you basing your knowledge of the process of pre-grand jury interviews on?

As has been already stated the leaks about the five subjects of the investigation were BEFORE (get the adult who explained priorities from the other thread to you to explain what before means) the granted was seated so unless there is a psychic on the panel the grand jury couldn't have leaked this.

lol what exactly do you think the prefix "pre" means?

My question is an genuine one. You seem very certain about the amount of people involved in this process, why? I've never been involved in an interview with a special counsel, I doubt you have either, so how are you so certain it's Mueller calling up these people being interviewed, and no one else being involved?

If it wasn't someone from Mueller's team who called the subjects of the investigation then he's failed in his job already because he's tainted his investigation.

I have been involved in several investigations, including involving feds, and know that the absolute only way that anyone not involved in the investigation knows is if either someone in the investigative team talked or the target of the investigation talked. The latter gains absolutely nothing by leaking the info. Nothing. The former does.

When you are dealing with an investigation of this scope it's typical for everything to be self-contained and compartmentalized. Everything from the lead investigator, which is Mueller in this case, to the people who type and file everything are detailed to this investigation. Even entry to the office requires pre-approved clearance. There simply isn't a chance that this is something overheard at the coffee maker. Everybody who sets foot or works on the case is required to sign non-disclosure forms. Any leak, no matter how innocuous, has the potential to derail your investigation and hinder potential prosecution so that's why they are supposed to do everything in their power to prevent them.

Sad!