New opinion piece in WSJ that ties together the snippet of info coming out over the last few days. This SHOULD call into question whether Mueller is truly credible for this investigation. You have to question the motivation for some of this when you see the close knit relationships being exposed between several people working for Mueller, associated with Mueller and Mueller himself and Hillary Clinton.

We are going on 1 year of this. You would think by now we would have seen actual evidence and testimony of how Russians and Trump colluded to steal the election. So far we have nothing. What leaks there are with the independent investigator shows the group casting broad nets that are designed to leverage people to turn on Trump instead of focusing on actual investigation of the facts.

Everything about this seems filthy and far from above board.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/muellers-cr...1512432318

Quote:Donald Trump is his own worst enemy, as his many ill-advised tweets on the weekend about Michael Flynn, the FBI and Robert Mueller’s Russia probe demonstrate. But that doesn’t mean that Mr. Mueller and the Federal Bureau of Investigation deserve a pass about their motives and methods, as new information raises troubling questions.

The Washington Post and the New York Times reported Saturday that a lead FBI investigator on the Mueller probe, Peter Strzok, was demoted this summer after it was discovered he’d sent anti- Trump texts to a mistress. As troubling, Mr. Mueller and the Justice Department kept this information from House investigators, despite Intelligence Committee subpoenas that would have exposed those texts. They also refused to answer questions about Mr. Strzok’s dismissal and refused to make him available for an interview.

The news about Mr. Strzok leaked only when the Justice Department concluded it couldn’t hold out any longer, and the stories were full of spin that praised Mr. Mueller for acting “swiftly” to remove the agent. Only after these stories ran did Justice agree on Saturday to make Mr. Strzok available to the House.

This is all the more notable because Mr. Strzok was a chief lieutenant to former FBI Director James Comey and played a lead role investigating alleged coordination between the Trump campaign and Russia during the 2016 election. Mr. Mueller then gave him a top role in his special-counsel probe. And before all this Mr. Strzok led the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s emails and sat in on the interview she gave to the FBI shortly before Mr. Comey publicly exonerated her in violation of Justice Department practice.

Oh, and the woman with whom he supposedly exchanged anti-Trump texts, FBI lawyer Lisa Page, worked for both Mr. Mueller and deputy FBI director Andrew McCabe, who was accused of a conflict of interest in the Clinton probe when it came out that Clinton allies had donated to the political campaign of Mr. McCabe’s wife. The texts haven’t been publicly released, but it’s fair to assume their anti-Trump bias must be clear for Mr. Mueller to reassign such a senior agent.

Quote:We are going on 1 year of this. You would think by now we would have seen actual evidence and testimony of how Russians and Trump colluded to steal the election. So far we have nothing. What leaks there are with the independent investigator shows the group casting broad nets that are designed to leverage people to turn on Trump instead of focusing on actual investigation of the facts.

Why would you expect to see evidence before they've finished their investigation? That's not how that works.

Just as I predicted, Trump and his supporters are laying the groundwork for Trump to fire Mueller.

(12-05-2017 01:03 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

Quote:We are going on 1 year of this. You would think by now we would have seen actual evidence and testimony of how Russians and Trump colluded to steal the election. So far we have nothing. What leaks there are with the independent investigator shows the group casting broad nets that are designed to leverage people to turn on Trump instead of focusing on actual investigation of the facts.

Why would you expect to see evidence before they've finished their investigation? That's not how that works.

Simply put, Mueller expanded the scope of his investigation. At least that is what I infer from the news we see as of now. It seems the gov't supposedly knew that Russia was interfering for some time. Also, it appears the investigation migrated towards Trump before Mueller and Comey before him formally started their investigation when Trump was president. Did not Obama utilize FISA to wiretap people on Trump's campaign at the time? This has been going on for some time. With the technology at our disposal today, you would think that securing info would be a good bit more efficient than as little as 10 years ago.

Knowing the number of close ties to the DNC and Clinton donors to a number of members on Mueller's team - doesn't that concern anyone that the investigation may not be as impartial as it should be?

It is a witch hunt, everyone knows it. If you like the idea of someone running for POTUS who is not a corrupt political insider controlled by Wall St. a CIA stooge, and Military Industrial Complex, then take note.

Now that accusations have been leveled, it's obvious that an investigation of the investigor needs to be conducted because we just don't know.

(12-05-2017 01:35 PM)TechRocks Wrote:  Now that accusations have been leveled, it's obvious that an investigation of the investigor needs to be conducted because we just don't know.

I think Trump will simply fire Mueller.

(12-05-2017 01:13 PM)miko33 Wrote:  Knowing the number of close ties to the DNC and Clinton donors to a number of members on Mueller's team - doesn't that concern anyone that the investigation may not be as impartial as it should be?

I think an investigation is warranted because we just don't know. And who could be against such an investigation? Everyone wants to know the truth, no?

(12-05-2017 01:15 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  It is a witch hunt, everyone knows it. If you like the idea of someone running for POTUS who is not a corrupt political insider controlled by Wall St. a CIA stooge, and Military Industrial Complex, then take note.

She lost.

(12-05-2017 01:38 PM)TechRocks Wrote:  

(12-05-2017 01:15 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  It is a witch hunt, everyone knows it. If you like the idea of someone running for POTUS who is not a corrupt political insider controlled by Wall St. a CIA stooge, and Military Industrial Complex, then take note.

She lost.

Yep, so why is your president still tweeting about her?

(12-05-2017 04:43 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(12-05-2017 01:38 PM)TechRocks Wrote:  

(12-05-2017 01:15 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  It is a witch hunt, everyone knows it. If you like the idea of someone running for POTUS who is not a corrupt political insider controlled by Wall St. a CIA stooge, and Military Industrial Complex, then take note.

She lost.

Yep, so why is your president still tweeting about her?

He's not your president too?

(12-05-2017 04:48 PM)TechRocks Wrote:  

(12-05-2017 04:43 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(12-05-2017 01:38 PM)TechRocks Wrote:  

(12-05-2017 01:15 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  It is a witch hunt, everyone knows it. If you like the idea of someone running for POTUS who is not a corrupt political insider controlled by Wall St. a CIA stooge, and Military Industrial Complex, then take note.

She lost.

Yep, so why is your president still tweeting about her?

He's not your president too?

I'd really don't like taking ownership of his actions even if he is of course my President. But, why is President Donald Trump still tweeting about her?

(12-05-2017 04:50 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(12-05-2017 04:48 PM)TechRocks Wrote:  

(12-05-2017 04:43 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(12-05-2017 01:38 PM)TechRocks Wrote:  

(12-05-2017 01:15 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  It is a witch hunt, everyone knows it. If you like the idea of someone running for POTUS who is not a corrupt political insider controlled by Wall St. a CIA stooge, and Military Industrial Complex, then take note.

She lost.

Yep, so why is your president still tweeting about her?

He's not your president too?

I'd really don't like taking ownership of his actions even if he is of course my President. But, why is President Donald Trump still tweeting about her?

Wouldn't that be a better question directed at him?

(12-05-2017 04:53 PM)TechRocks Wrote:  

(12-05-2017 04:50 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(12-05-2017 04:48 PM)TechRocks Wrote:  

(12-05-2017 04:43 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(12-05-2017 01:38 PM)TechRocks Wrote:  She lost.

Yep, so why is your president still tweeting about her?

He's not your president too?

I'd really don't like taking ownership of his actions even if he is of course my President. But, why is President Donald Trump still tweeting about her?

Wouldn't that be a better question directed at him?

Sure, virtually every topic on this political messageboard would be better asked to elected officials themselves, or do you not grasp the concept of this place?

On the question of whether or not he is my president.

I would have said that about every other president before him but not this one.

I may have disagreed with Bush's policies but I still believed that he was doing what he was doing in the best interest of the entire country.

Nothing proved that to me more than the speech he soon after 9/11.

Trump however proves each and every day that he is the President only to the 30% of America that voted for him and no one else.

(12-05-2017 04:55 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(12-05-2017 04:53 PM)TechRocks Wrote:  

(12-05-2017 04:50 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(12-05-2017 04:48 PM)TechRocks Wrote:  

(12-05-2017 04:43 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  Yep, so why is your president still tweeting about her?

He's not your president too?

I'd really don't like taking ownership of his actions even if he is of course my President. But, why is President Donald Trump still tweeting about her?

Wouldn't that be a better question directed at him?

Sure, virtually every topic on this political messageboard would be better asked to elected officials themselves, or do you not grasp the concept of this place?

So what did Gowdy have to say?