Trump's Russian Collusion

[MDlaxfan76]

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/artic ... 40493.html
A prescient article...

Prescient indeed. Here's the plot line for the sequel :

...the real subversion of justice was committed by the Obama administration’s DoJ, FBI, and intelligence agencies, both in their investigations of Trump and in whitewashing the email case against Hillary Clinton. Attorney General William Barr is already looking into those charges, as are DoJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz and U.S. Attorneys John Durham and John Huber. The chief judge of the secret intelligence courts, Rosemary Collyer, has already delivered a report to DoJ saying that the court was not given full, truthful information in warrant applications.

These investigations could burgeon into a catastrophic scandal, involving not only leaking, lying, and illicit spying but possibly collusion by U.S. government agencies to affect the outcome of an election. We don’t know that yet, and we don’t know the role the Obama White House played, but we need to know.

You want safeguards against the abuse of FISA ? Hold the abusers accountable.
...same with the leakers of classified info.

How would the writer know that?

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/fisa ... rveillance

President Trump allowed the release of the report in it's unredacted form

Not sure how this supports your point in red.

"Before 2018, the Court had never received a request from Congress for documents related to any specific FISA application. Thus, your requests — and others I have recently received from Congress — present novel and significant questions," Collyer wrote in her letter to Nunes.

That's what she wrote to Nunes, saying she was forwarding her report to DoJ.
Trump subsequently allowed the release of the report in it's unredacted form.

How come we can't read it? Not on line?

Maybe DoJ has not released it yet, possibly waiting for the IG or Durham's reports, or we don't know where to look.
That does not make the fact that it exists, classified information.

From these posts, I assumed something had actually happened on this. I googled her name but found nothing new.
The articles you link to are from way back, and there's nada since, far as I can tell.

If you're correct that Trump has ordered any such, including what she sent to DOJ, to be unclassified (where's that citation?), then presumably it's not been released because it doesn't actually help Trump. That's certainly my starting point, not the opposite!

But I could be all wet and something's actually happened...if so, please cite it.

[a fan]

Don't put words in my mouth.

You didn't just call Mueller an empty shirt? You did. And below, you do it again.

So tell me: why did Rosenstein appoint him? Take your time. You're telling me that a Dem collusion was put into motion by a top Republican hand picked by Trump himself. You're not making any sense.

Muellers reputation gave cover to the real investigators. 19 Hillary Clinton supporters. Colluding with the MSM to bring Trump to his knees and undo the 2016 election.

Again, then why did Rosenstein appoint him? It goes back to Republican decision making in every case. You can't dance your way out of this.

You think this is about R's and D's? thought you were more "woke" than that.

You tell me. You're the one trying to make this into a vast conspiracy to, if I get this right, investigate Trump.

So now Mueller, Rosenstein, Mueller's team, dozens of FBI agents, and the kitchen sink all risked their careers and conspired together.

And to what end did all of these people conspire? Apparently they all conspired to investigate Trump, find that he did nothing illegal, and then go find other things to do in their busy lives.

Wow. Jawdropping. Can you imagine the gall of our FBI and DoJ agents investigating Trump, and finding that Trump did nothing illegal?

Earth shattering stuff here.

[a fan]

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/artic ... 40493.html
A prescient article...

Prescient indeed. Here's the plot line for the sequel :

...the real subversion of justice was committed by the Obama administration’s DoJ, FBI, and intelligence agencies, both in their investigations of Trump and in whitewashing the email case against Hillary Clinton. Attorney General William Barr is already looking into those charges, as are DoJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz and U.S. Attorneys John Durham and John Huber. The chief judge of the secret intelligence courts, Rosemary Collyer, has already delivered a report to DoJ saying that the court was not given full, truthful information in warrant applications.

These investigations could burgeon into a catastrophic scandal, involving not only leaking, lying, and illicit spying but possibly collusion by U.S. government agencies to affect the outcome of an election. We don’t know that yet, and we don’t know the role the Obama White House played, but we need to know.

You want safeguards against the abuse of FISA ? Hold the abusers accountable.
...same with the leakers of classified info.

More opinion masquerading as fact.

As for safeguards against FISA abuse, holding anyone doesn't begin to fix FISA.

The tinfoil hatters think that dozens of government agents in various departments conspired against Trump. And you think the "only reason they were caught" is that Hillary lost, remember?

So simply indicting those who broke laws (assuming you find any) doesn't fix FISA.

-the implication is that FBI agents weren't shooting straight pool with FISA judges, yes? What makes you think this is an anomaly, and not SOP? Faith? You have to turn FISA upside down to see if this is simply how they do it. Theres no light of day when it comes to FISA.

-you're also forgetting the tin foil hat brigades assertion that "no one would have found out about FISA abuses if Hillary had won". In other words, holding those caught breaking laws accountable doesn't protect against future FISA abuse. It simply means: if you abuse FISA, make doggone sure your "side" wins the election, and you won't get caught.

FISA is a mess no matter if indictments are handed out or not. It needs an overhaul. Surely you see this, no?

[old salt]

Let's see what the IG finds & what he recommends.

[MDlaxfan76]

Let's see what the IG finds & what he recommends.

And that's what you're doing in the series of posts above???
Who has been claiming we shouldn't wait?

I thought there was actually some meat on this bone, something had actually happened new, "Breaking News!", but we're constantly left from you guys with "Where's the Beef?"

Come on, you and 6ft and tech37 are peddling a conspiracy theory with zero credible basis.

Moreover, with specious claims that are incredibly insulting to the career professionals who protect our country from foreign adversaries, political corruption, domestic and foreign terrorism, etc, etc.

For shame.

[a fan]

Let's see what the IG finds & what he recommends.

Agreed.

I just don't want indictments w/o fixes to the system itself. If FISA is in good shape, fine. But if it's vulnerable to one or two bad actors, then the checks and balances need to be strengthened.

[tech37]

Let's see what the IG finds & what he recommends.

Agreed.

I just don't want indictments w/o fixes to the system itself. If FISA is in good shape, fine. But if it's vulnerable to one or two bad actors, then the checks and balances need to be strengthened.

Good, objective, level-headed, open-minded, patient post from you a fan...seriously.

Mdlax, not so much...

[Trinity]

On the heels of the Senate Report on Russian interference, Mitch McConnell blocks two election security laws. Useless, as he was when Obama warned him in 2016. But a big Russian aluminum plant is headed to Ky.

[foreverlax]

If you watched any of that fiasco yesterday and still think Mueller had anything to do with the investigation or the report you've lost your mind.

Doubling down, are we? So you're telling me that you think Rosenstein intentionally hand picked an empty shirt to go after Trump?

Care to share why you think Trump's own guy would do that?

Don't put words in my mouth.

Muellers reputation gave cover to the real investigators. 19 Hillary Clinton supporters. Colluding with the MSM to bring Trump to his knees and undo the 2016 election.

If you believe that Mueller didn't know the answer to every single question put to him, I have some beachfront property in Kansas I want to sell you. He didn't want to answer and played dumb and/or responded "I can't answer that" all day long.....

Completely agree. You only saw his back go up a hand full of times, the rest was role play. Asking to have the question repeated is a classic sales technique...gives you some time to actually think, plus the question is often buried deep in b.s.. Not reading a word from the report ensures he had complete control over what he said.

Yea, he is getting older, maybe even breaking down some...he did good enough.

The b.s. about who wrote it did he read blah blah blah....each word was crafted and reviewed by top legal minds.

If Mueller was sandbagging everyone with his performance he should be nominated for an academy award. I was not aware that Mueller was going into this testimony as a salesman. I thought he was there to testify. Most of the sales techniques and salespeople I work with are consummate BS artists. They will lie and tell you anything to sell you product. Is that what Mueller was trying to do... sell everybody his product? He would probably be better served sticking to the practice of law. He is one lousy salesman if that what he was trying to do.

Lawyers have to know how to sell.... is not a dirty word, bummer for you that your experiences have been so dirty.

[cradleandshoot]

Yesterday was an embarrassing fiasco for all of America. After the whole sheepdip show was over... nobodies opinion was changed. The only thing I learned yesterday much to the chagrin of MD was that Robert Mueller never read his own report either. The only good thing that happened yesterday and this is selfish on my part my little grandaughter came in to this word at 6 PM last night.

Congrats to you grandpa!!!! Cheers!

I'll join with that congrats!

The snide remark about Mueller, no so much.

I'm of two minds about his performance.

On the one hand, it was entirely in character. Always hyper-careful to be sure to understand the question before answering it (which sometimes was frustratingly slowly) in order to be sure his answer was directly on point and no more. And scrupulously careful to not violate the strictures imposed by the DOJ (with which he appeared to have no issue) meaning unwilling to characterize his team's findings with regard to criminality of the President in any way substantially expanding upon what was stated in the Report. He was clear as to why he would go no further, but only in terms that those who actually wanted to understand could comprehend. Scrupulously avoiding any impression that he himself was anything but right down the middle.

In character, so if you think his character is actually laudable and essential to the credibility of the Report, a positive, albeit frustrating confirmation of the very careful fellow he is.

On the other hand, Mueller failed to recognize and/or employ the essential elements of communicating in a TV arena. To the extent that his command, character, and conclusions were being impugned, the moment required a forceful communication style. He could have been just as terse with his responses affirming the critical findings of the Report as he was, and stayed tightly within his imposed bounds, but when the GOP flamers spent all their time impugning him and his team, and quite wrongly characterizing the work and conclusions, etc, he allowed them to filibuster any objections to such he clearly had. The heck with the Congressmen claiming that "my time is short" each time he tried to interject that what they were seeing was wrong, Mueller should have said, "Sir, MY time here is short, and I WILL answer your question". And if that meant that he did so once the GOP Congressmen had exhausted their 5 minutes, I'm sure Nadler and Schiff would have given him the courtesy of responding directly to any GOP diatribes. But he did not.

I also think that some of the Dems did him no favors in not being clear, upfront, as to exactly where they were quoting from, which meant that he had to ask for that reference so as to be sure that what they said indeed went no further than how the Report stated their findings. When a questioner gave him the citation upfront, he was able to focus solely on the actual question and had no difficulty coming across quickly to affirm the point being made. But when no citation upfront, it made him appear to not know the words in the Report when he was actually just trying to be sure that nothing was being stated incorrectly.

He was most effective under the clear questioning by Nadler and Schiff, and he showed a little, though not enough emotion, when defending his employee selection process (this called for a more forceful statement each time the process was impugned), and he was quite good when discussing the nature of the threat imposed and the ethical dimensions, not just the legalities (which he was so careful to parse). When speaking about the threat and the ethics about the various actions of the Trump crew detailed in Volume 1, he was powerful.

But perhaps only to those who were bothering to listen.

I have to admit I was unable to watch Mr Muellers entire testimony. I spent most of my time texting with my son for the latest update. Everytime I caught a few snipets I was not watching a man who was being overly cautious. I was watching a man who was thoroughly confused about what was in his own report. That is your opinion and that is fine by me. As a matter of fact your thought process should come in very handy for me.The next time my wife thinks I am confused about what she is telling me I can proudly answer back that I am just being extra careful in contemplating the meaning of her words. Can you repeat that again honey? Wait... do you have the citation on that? What was that again... can you repeat that? What was your question again? Being extra cautious... I never thought of using that angle before. Thank you MD.

[ggait]

The chief judge of the secret intelligence courts, Rosemary Collyer, has already delivered a report to DoJ saying that the court was not given full, truthful information in warrant applications.

It is extremely unlikely that there was anything unusual going on with Papadop. It is very likely he got standard/aggressive treatment.

As the link below indicates, the FISA court has been complaining about the FBI's candor in warrant applications for many years under D and R administrations both.

So the outrage about Papadop is pretty selective. There may be a systemic issue, but it has been around for a long time -- certainly since 9/11.

https://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/23/us/s ... cases.html

[MDlaxfan76]

Yesterday was an embarrassing fiasco for all of America. After the whole sheepdip show was over... nobodies opinion was changed. The only thing I learned yesterday much to the chagrin of MD was that Robert Mueller never read his own report either. The only good thing that happened yesterday and this is selfish on my part my little grandaughter came in to this word at 6 PM last night.

Congrats to you grandpa!!!! Cheers!

I'll join with that congrats!

The snide remark about Mueller, no so much.

I'm of two minds about his performance.

On the one hand, it was entirely in character. Always hyper-careful to be sure to understand the question before answering it (which sometimes was frustratingly slowly) in order to be sure his answer was directly on point and no more. And scrupulously careful to not violate the strictures imposed by the DOJ (with which he appeared to have no issue) meaning unwilling to characterize his team's findings with regard to criminality of the President in any way substantially expanding upon what was stated in the Report. He was clear as to why he would go no further, but only in terms that those who actually wanted to understand could comprehend. Scrupulously avoiding any impression that he himself was anything but right down the middle.

In character, so if you think his character is actually laudable and essential to the credibility of the Report, a positive, albeit frustrating confirmation of the very careful fellow he is.

On the other hand, Mueller failed to recognize and/or employ the essential elements of communicating in a TV arena. To the extent that his command, character, and conclusions were being impugned, the moment required a forceful communication style. He could have been just as terse with his responses affirming the critical findings of the Report as he was, and stayed tightly within his imposed bounds, but when the GOP flamers spent all their time impugning him and his team, and quite wrongly characterizing the work and conclusions, etc, he allowed them to filibuster any objections to such he clearly had. The heck with the Congressmen claiming that "my time is short" each time he tried to interject that what they were seeing was wrong, Mueller should have said, "Sir, MY time here is short, and I WILL answer your question". And if that meant that he did so once the GOP Congressmen had exhausted their 5 minutes, I'm sure Nadler and Schiff would have given him the courtesy of responding directly to any GOP diatribes. But he did not.

I also think that some of the Dems did him no favors in not being clear, upfront, as to exactly where they were quoting from, which meant that he had to ask for that reference so as to be sure that what they said indeed went no further than how the Report stated their findings. When a questioner gave him the citation upfront, he was able to focus solely on the actual question and had no difficulty coming across quickly to affirm the point being made. But when no citation upfront, it made him appear to not know the words in the Report when he was actually just trying to be sure that nothing was being stated incorrectly.

He was most effective under the clear questioning by Nadler and Schiff, and he showed a little, though not enough emotion, when defending his employee selection process (this called for a more forceful statement each time the process was impugned), and he was quite good when discussing the nature of the threat imposed and the ethical dimensions, not just the legalities (which he was so careful to parse). When speaking about the threat and the ethics about the various actions of the Trump crew detailed in Volume 1, he was powerful.

But perhaps only to those who were bothering to listen.

I have to admit I was unable to watch Mr Muellers entire testimony. I spent most of my time texting with my son for the latest update. Everytime I caught a few snipets I was not watching a man who was being overly cautious. I was watching a man who was thoroughly confused about what was in his own report. That is your opinion and that is fine by me. As a matter of fact your thought process should come in very handy for me.The next time my wife thinks I am confused about what she is telling me I can proudly answer back that I am just being extra careful in contemplating the meaning of her words. Can you repeat that again honey? Wait... do you have the citation on that? What was that again... can you repeat that? What was your question again? Being extra cautious... I never thought of using that angle before. Thank you MD.

Good luck with that, cradle!

There were indeed times when he seemed 'confused'. He was definitely much older than in his prior times before Congress, and often seemed actually unable to hear. Certainly some of the questions were rapid fire, or actually not questions al all from the R's as they were more making statements than actually asking anything. Then they wouldn't let him answer, which he wished to do...again, carefully, thoughtfully.

I was surprised that he didn't turn to his #2 almost at all...which I think I might have done, and certainly would have if I was having difficulty keeping up mentally and actually needed help with more than turning the pages of the Report quickly.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Yesterday was an embarrassing fiasco for all of America. After the whole sheepdip show was over... nobodies opinion was changed. The only thing I learned yesterday much to the chagrin of MD was that Robert Mueller never read his own report either. The only good thing that happened yesterday and this is selfish on my part my little grandaughter came in to this word at 6 PM last night.

Congrats to you grandpa!!!! Cheers!

I'll join with that congrats!

The snide remark about Mueller, no so much.

I'm of two minds about his performance.

On the one hand, it was entirely in character. Always hyper-careful to be sure to understand the question before answering it (which sometimes was frustratingly slowly) in order to be sure his answer was directly on point and no more. And scrupulously careful to not violate the strictures imposed by the DOJ (with which he appeared to have no issue) meaning unwilling to characterize his team's findings with regard to criminality of the President in any way substantially expanding upon what was stated in the Report. He was clear as to why he would go no further, but only in terms that those who actually wanted to understand could comprehend. Scrupulously avoiding any impression that he himself was anything but right down the middle.

In character, so if you think his character is actually laudable and essential to the credibility of the Report, a positive, albeit frustrating confirmation of the very careful fellow he is.

On the other hand, Mueller failed to recognize and/or employ the essential elements of communicating in a TV arena. To the extent that his command, character, and conclusions were being impugned, the moment required a forceful communication style. He could have been just as terse with his responses affirming the critical findings of the Report as he was, and stayed tightly within his imposed bounds, but when the GOP flamers spent all their time impugning him and his team, and quite wrongly characterizing the work and conclusions, etc, he allowed them to filibuster any objections to such he clearly had. The heck with the Congressmen claiming that "my time is short" each time he tried to interject that what they were seeing was wrong, Mueller should have said, "Sir, MY time here is short, and I WILL answer your question". And if that meant that he did so once the GOP Congressmen had exhausted their 5 minutes, I'm sure Nadler and Schiff would have given him the courtesy of responding directly to any GOP diatribes. But he did not.

I also think that some of the Dems did him no favors in not being clear, upfront, as to exactly where they were quoting from, which meant that he had to ask for that reference so as to be sure that what they said indeed went no further than how the Report stated their findings. When a questioner gave him the citation upfront, he was able to focus solely on the actual question and had no difficulty coming across quickly to affirm the point being made. But when no citation upfront, it made him appear to not know the words in the Report when he was actually just trying to be sure that nothing was being stated incorrectly.

He was most effective under the clear questioning by Nadler and Schiff, and he showed a little, though not enough emotion, when defending his employee selection process (this called for a more forceful statement each time the process was impugned), and he was quite good when discussing the nature of the threat imposed and the ethical dimensions, not just the legalities (which he was so careful to parse). When speaking about the threat and the ethics about the various actions of the Trump crew detailed in Volume 1, he was powerful.

But perhaps only to those who were bothering to listen.

I have to admit I was unable to watch Mr Muellers entire testimony. I spent most of my time texting with my son for the latest update. Everytime I caught a few snipets I was not watching a man who was being overly cautious. I was watching a man who was thoroughly confused about what was in his own report. That is your opinion and that is fine by me. As a matter of fact your thought process should come in very handy for me.The next time my wife thinks I am confused about what she is telling me I can proudly answer back that I am just being extra careful in contemplating the meaning of her words. Can you repeat that again honey? Wait... do you have the citation on that? What was that again... can you repeat that? What was your question again? Being extra cautious... I never thought of using that angle before. Thank you MD.

We have seen a ton of public officials sit before congress including Wild Bill.... I know one guy we have not seen sitting in front of that line of fire answering questions.

[cradleandshoot]

Yesterday was an embarrassing fiasco for all of America. After the whole sheepdip show was over... nobodies opinion was changed. The only thing I learned yesterday much to the chagrin of MD was that Robert Mueller never read his own report either. The only good thing that happened yesterday and this is selfish on my part my little grandaughter came in to this word at 6 PM last night.

Congrats to you grandpa!!!! Cheers!

I'll join with that congrats!

The snide remark about Mueller, no so much.

I'm of two minds about his performance.

On the one hand, it was entirely in character. Always hyper-careful to be sure to understand the question before answering it (which sometimes was frustratingly slowly) in order to be sure his answer was directly on point and no more. And scrupulously careful to not violate the strictures imposed by the DOJ (with which he appeared to have no issue) meaning unwilling to characterize his team's findings with regard to criminality of the President in any way substantially expanding upon what was stated in the Report. He was clear as to why he would go no further, but only in terms that those who actually wanted to understand could comprehend. Scrupulously avoiding any impression that he himself was anything but right down the middle.

In character, so if you think his character is actually laudable and essential to the credibility of the Report, a positive, albeit frustrating confirmation of the very careful fellow he is.

On the other hand, Mueller failed to recognize and/or employ the essential elements of communicating in a TV arena. To the extent that his command, character, and conclusions were being impugned, the moment required a forceful communication style. He could have been just as terse with his responses affirming the critical findings of the Report as he was, and stayed tightly within his imposed bounds, but when the GOP flamers spent all their time impugning him and his team, and quite wrongly characterizing the work and conclusions, etc, he allowed them to filibuster any objections to such he clearly had. The heck with the Congressmen claiming that "my time is short" each time he tried to interject that what they were seeing was wrong, Mueller should have said, "Sir, MY time here is short, and I WILL answer your question". And if that meant that he did so once the GOP Congressmen had exhausted their 5 minutes, I'm sure Nadler and Schiff would have given him the courtesy of responding directly to any GOP diatribes. But he did not.

I also think that some of the Dems did him no favors in not being clear, upfront, as to exactly where they were quoting from, which meant that he had to ask for that reference so as to be sure that what they said indeed went no further than how the Report stated their findings. When a questioner gave him the citation upfront, he was able to focus solely on the actual question and had no difficulty coming across quickly to affirm the point being made. But when no citation upfront, it made him appear to not know the words in the Report when he was actually just trying to be sure that nothing was being stated incorrectly.

He was most effective under the clear questioning by Nadler and Schiff, and he showed a little, though not enough emotion, when defending his employee selection process (this called for a more forceful statement each time the process was impugned), and he was quite good when discussing the nature of the threat imposed and the ethical dimensions, not just the legalities (which he was so careful to parse). When speaking about the threat and the ethics about the various actions of the Trump crew detailed in Volume 1, he was powerful.

But perhaps only to those who were bothering to listen.

I have to admit I was unable to watch Mr Muellers entire testimony. I spent most of my time texting with my son for the latest update. Everytime I caught a few snipets I was not watching a man who was being overly cautious. I was watching a man who was thoroughly confused about what was in his own report. That is your opinion and that is fine by me. As a matter of fact your thought process should come in very handy for me.The next time my wife thinks I am confused about what she is telling me I can proudly answer back that I am just being extra careful in contemplating the meaning of her words. Can you repeat that again honey? Wait... do you have the citation on that? What was that again... can you repeat that? What was your question again? Being extra cautious... I never thought of using that angle before. Thank you MD.

We have seen a ton of public officials sit before congress including Wild Bill.... I know one guy we have not seen sitting in front of that line of fire answering questions.

Who could that possibly be?

[Trinity]

Mueller coddled Trump and his lying brats and you’re complaining? No subpoenas for Trump or Dondi? People allowed to lie to the fbi without consequence? C’mon. Clinton had to answer one about sex. Trump can answer one about national security? What a kitten.

[a fan]

The chief judge of the secret intelligence courts, Rosemary Collyer, has already delivered a report to DoJ saying that the court was not given full, truthful information in warrant applications.

It is extremely unlikely that there was anything unusual going on with Papadop. It is very likely he got standard/aggressive treatment.

As the link below indicates, the FISA court has been complaining about the FBI's candor in warrant applications for many years under D and R administrations both.

So the outrage about Papadop is pretty selective. There may be a systemic issue, but it has been around for a long time -- certainly since 9/11.

https://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/23/us/s ... cases.html

This is at the heart of my comments about FISA.

If the FISA investigations show that FBI officials pushed the envelope with Trump's gang-----that says nothing to me. But Trumpfans will point to that and say "see, told you they were blah blah blah Deep State".

What I want to know is: what is standard SOP with FISA warrants? Bending the rules can EASILY be SOP. So can breaking them. In other words, if the FBI was acting like they normally act with FISA, that eliminates the Deep State conspiracy theories, and becomes a simple "I told you so" when it comes to FISA.

In other words, the libs and he ACLU warned you all about FISA, you ignored them. And if it turns out they were right, I don't want to hear any weak sauce complaining now that "your guy" suffered because of FISA. Moreover, if they ONLY investigate how Trump's boys were treated, and don't look at the overall system, I'm really going to be peeved.

[Trinity]

If junior took the Fifth, why can’t Americans know that? Seems that would be important, President’s son believes his answers might incriminate him. Coddled. Every step.

[HooDat]

Let's see what the IG finds & what he recommends.

Agreed.

I just don't want indictments w/o fixes to the system itself. If FISA is in good shape, fine. But if it's vulnerable to one or two bad actors, then the checks and balances need to be strengthened.

not .... holding .... my ... breath......

[a fan]

Me neither. Reason 9,403 I despise partisans, and 100% believe they are ruining our country.

[cradleandshoot]

If you watched any of that fiasco yesterday and still think Mueller had anything to do with the investigation or the report you've lost your mind.

Doubling down, are we? So you're telling me that you think Rosenstein intentionally hand picked an empty shirt to go after Trump?

Care to share why you think Trump's own guy would do that?

Don't put words in my mouth.

Muellers reputation gave cover to the real investigators. 19 Hillary Clinton supporters. Colluding with the MSM to bring Trump to his knees and undo the 2016 election.

If you believe that Mueller didn't know the answer to every single question put to him, I have some beachfront property in Kansas I want to sell you. He didn't want to answer and played dumb and/or responded "I can't answer that" all day long.....

Completely agree. You only saw his back go up a hand full of times, the rest was role play. Asking to have the question repeated is a classic sales technique...gives you some time to actually think, plus the question is often buried deep in b.s.. Not reading a word from the report ensures he had complete control over what he said.

Yea, he is getting older, maybe even breaking down some...he did good enough.

The b.s. about who wrote it did he read blah blah blah....each word was crafted and reviewed by top legal minds.

If Mueller was sandbagging everyone with his performance he should be nominated for an academy award. I was not aware that Mueller was going into this testimony as a salesman. I thought he was there to testify. Most of the sales techniques and salespeople I work with are consummate BS artists. They will lie and tell you anything to sell you product. Is that what Mueller was trying to do... sell everybody his product? He would probably be better served sticking to the practice of law. He is one lousy salesman if that what he was trying to do.

Lawyers have to know how to sell.... is not a dirty word, bummer for you that your experiences have been so dirty.

I think we are talking about 2 different things. I dont think any ethical lawyer would tell a deliberate lie in the course of his/her pitch. The salespeople I know would sell their soul to the devil and lie to their own mother if it meant moving product. Some pitches are meant to persuade. Then there are the pitches strictly meant to sell you something and separate you from your money.