• Current Events & Politics
    Welcome Guest
    Please read before posting:
    Forum Guidelines Bluelight Rules
  • Current Events & Politics Moderators: deficiT | tryptakid | Foreigner

US Politics The Mueller Investigation - report is out

TheLoveBandit said:
Let's stick to Mueller's investigation of Trump in this thread, please.
Click to expand...

So, anything new? lol. This thread is a conspiracy theory thread. Mueller hasn't turned over one piece of evidence showing collusion or election interference. We now have bipartisan Senate Committee statements saying they have no evidence. Stick a fork in Mueller, he's cooked.

I went back to the start of this thread, look at my very first posts:

29 September 2017

"In this video Tucker Carlson single-handedly destroys the Russian conspiracy theory narrative. Its ridiculousness falls apart under the most basic of scrutiny."
Click to expand...

"What we're witnessing now is investigation creep. Looks like they might even nail Manafort, and maybe Flynn.
But don't get your hopes up that they have anything on The Donald."
Click to expand...

Y'all should listen to me more often. My story hasn't changed this whole time, unlike Mueller's. I get it that many really want Trump to go down, but facts and evidence are separate to wishful thinking.

JessFR said:
Well it's either hurt my credibility, or lie about my belief, so I guess it's credibility that's gotta go
Click to expand...
No I mean you haven't even bothered to look at the evidence yet you state there's no evidence lol. Why even form a belief if you are unaware? I believe you're calling the very real FISA scandal a conspiracy theory because if it's true it will not be something that you would wish to accept.

I won't bring it up again in this thread, but just as I was spot on 2 yrs ago, I'm telling you that this is done, over - and FISA is the REAL story that we should all be discussing. I'll start a thread or something.
 
None. I trust NO news source. I try to get in put across the spectrum, and have a few people (not journalists) I trust for their insight and opinions. Personally, though I trust NO media at all. Fox is way right, beyond reason. Many others are way left, beyond reason. I've been disappointed for a long time that "news" no longer presents facts and lets you decide. For too long, it's been their opinions, facts are optional.
 
^ hannity loves sara carter. he also loves to criticise media for use of anonymous sources but seems to have no problem with carter's use e.g. SARA CARTER: Whistleblowers, GOP Congressional Sources Fear FISA Memo May Not be Released as FBI Works to Delegitimize Document

that piece said:
Investigative journalist Sara Carter reports:

Whistleblowers, Republican congressional members, and some former intelligence officials cite mounting concern that the White House may not release the House Intelligence Committee’s FISA abuse memo as the FBI pushed against plans to make it public based on false allegations that the memo contains information that would harm U.S. national security, sources tell this reporter.
Click to expand...
(my emphasis)

curiously, if you search for the original article on her site, it's been removed. i found 4 other references to sara carter's use of anonymous sources and, in each case, the original story was removed form her site. draw your own conclusion.

TheLoveBandit said:
I've been disappointed for a long time that "news" no longer presents facts and lets you decide. For too long, it's been their opinions, facts are optional.
Click to expand...

i don't buy that tlb - i think it's too broad a generalization. but i understand why we're here too. gross generalizations like "the media is the enemy of the people" by numerous historical dictators president trump, and the deliberate suppression of nuance get us here.

i think that most mainstream media clearly delineates between opinion and fact. as long as opinion is clearly indicated as such, i have no issue with media having an opinion.

there are news sources which lean center and have a solid reputation for reporting with minimal bias. have you ever checked out the christian science monitor? don't be fooled by the name. while it is affiliated with the church of christ scientist it does not push the church's position. their reporting is great with a refreshing lack of sensationalism. cs monitor writers have won 7 pulitzers.

i also tend to find that primary sources such as ap and reuters tend towards less bias.

i think most of us would agree that the key is to not single source.

alasdair
 
Last edited:
JGrimez said:
No I mean you haven't even bothered to look at the evidence yet you state there's no evidence lol. Why even form a belief if you are unaware? I believe you're calling the very real FISA scandal a conspiracy theory because if it's true it will not be something that you would wish to accept.

I won't bring it up again in this thread, but just as I was spot on 2 yrs ago, I'm telling you that this is done, over - and FISA is the REAL story that we should all be discussing. I'll start a thread or something.
Click to expand...

Far as I'm concerned you're welcome to start a thread on the subject.

Problem here is, as I said, I found no evidence. Soooo... Without evidence, it's hard to look at the evidence.

I did look into it.. From what I could tell, it all started with a trump tweet in which he provided no evidence. Then there were more tweets that also provided no evidence. I don't trust trumps evaluation of whatever he might have seen, so his belief isn't evidence for me either.

At best there is some evidence of investigations into individuals related to the trump campaign... Which doesn't prove much either. Just that there was an investigation.

I was unable to find additional proof, I know how conspiracy theorists think given the crazy amount of my life I've had to spend with them, so I wrote the rest off.

If you wanna show some evidence on another thread, here's what I would accept. Which isn't to say you can't post whatever evidence you like, I'm just clarifying what kind of evidence I find pursuasive.

The main evidence I find compelling are released government documents, such as files, transcripts, briefs, etc.

There can be lesser evidence in the form of multiple accounts of individuals who would know that largely are in agreement.

And that evidence should be provided as a a narrative time-line that sources its facts on the way. Ideally one not on YouTube.

Now, obviously YouTube is just a store of information, it doesn't automatically have to be bad information. But the amount of bad information is soooo vast that I tend to write it off out of hand. And it doesn't haaave to be in an easy to follow time line, but again, there is soooooo much incoherent nonsense without one that I am simply unwilling to invest the time into proving or disproving something I already find seriously unlikely based on what I've heard you say about it.
 
Justice Department preparing for Mueller report as early as next week
https://www-m.cnn.com/2019/02/20/po...nnouncement/index.html?r=https://www.cnn.com/

Washington (CNN) ? Attorney General Bill Barr is preparing to announce as early as next week the completion of special counsel Robert Mueller's Russia investigation, with plans for Barr to submit to Congress soon after a summary of Mueller's confidential report, according to people familiar with the plans.

The preparations are the clearest indication yet that Mueller is nearly done with his almost two-year investigation.

The precise timing of the announcement is subject to change.
The scope and contours of what Barr will send to Congress remain unclear. Also unclear is how long it will take Justice officials to prepare what will be submitted to lawmakers.
But with President Donald Trump soon to travel overseas for a summit with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, Justice officials are mindful of not interfering with the White House's diplomatic efforts, which could impact the timing.
The Justice Department and the special counsel's office declined to comment.
Click to expand...
 
So have I, anyone want to take bets? lol

many people over the past couple of years said:
"You don't know what Mueller's got!"
Click to expand...

Guess we'll find out.
 
MSM is already preparing the Left for a big letdown. People like Schiff are saying that they'll launch new investigations if Mueller doesn't turn up anything. They'll probably blame Trump for obstructing. I thought Mueller was a honest and prestigious investigator though. Guess he missed something..
 
I'm going to wait for actual news before I decide to feel any particular way. If Mueller didn't find anything and he releases his final report saying so, I'll accept that. I'm not going to let myself be built up either way by the media beforehand though.
 
I'll call it right now just like I called it over 2 years ago. The Russia nonsense only came out after Trump won, and if he was an illegal Russian agent then it would have been all over CNN before the voting. Plus there's the whole FISA issue that everyone's ignoring. Mueller ain't got shit.
 
The idea that this investigation is just about nailing Trump (and it's highly doubtful that a sitting president can be indicted) is so limited. It's also about Russian interference in the election and conspiracy and other wrongdoing by members of the Trump campaign.

It's sad that people have reduced it to such a sliver of what it is and it's significance.
 
cduggles said:
It's also about Russian interference in the election
Click to expand...
If you think that you would've heard anything about Russian interference if Hillary won then you're dreaming.
USA interferes worse in Russia, this whole thing is a distraction. And that's been proven because Google CEO said Russians spent only $4,700 on online advertising. That is not worthy of a 2-year investigation with all the MSM hoopla. This isn't about Russians, it's an attempted coup against Trump.

cduggles said:
and conspiracy and other wrongdoing by members of the Trump campaign.
Click to expand...
Like what? Are you accusing them of the crime of conspiracy? Conspiracy to do what? Based on what evidence? Any other crimes you are accusing them of?How can you justify an investigation that began after no observable crime was committed? It's the definition of a witch hunt.

cduggles said:
It's sad that people have reduced it to such a sliver of what it is and it's significance.
Click to expand...
It's sad that people don't see the bias and hypocrisy involved in all this even when I've spelled it out multiple times. Mueller personally handed over uranium to Russians after flying there. Hillary/Obama oversaw a deal to let Russians purchase US uranium, and Mueller was FBI Director when those Russians were illegally exporting yellowcake to Canada and then to Europe. Bill Clinton met with Putin in his home and was paid $500,000 for a speech from a Kremlin-bank.

These are all facts and if this investigation into Trump turns up nothing, then it will prove that it's a big distraction to take focus off of the real Russian collusion.
 
Robert Mueller files 800+ page sentencing memo for Paul Manafort

1550889616438.jpg

Paul Manafort. Photo: Mandel Ngan/Getty Images.

Special counsel Robert Mueller has filed a sentencing memo for President Trump's former campaign manager Paul Manafort. Mueller does not take a position on how much time in prison Manafort should serve, but accuses him of "repeatedly and brazenly" breaking the law for over a decade, even after he was indicted."Based on his relevant sentencing conduct, Manafort presents many aggravating sentencing factors and no warranted mitigating factors."

Why it matters: Already, the 69-year-old Manafort faces a potential sentence of 19 to 24 years in his Virginia financial fraud case. The sentencing memo for Manafort's D.C. case, which is more than 800 pages with attachments, relates to his lobbying on behalf of Ukraine and could play a significant role in Mueller's broader investigation into ties between the Trump campaign and Russia.
Click to expand...

Will Manafort be pardoned?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top