Talk:Mueller investigation

"Political tribalism"
I know this is evident in the Republican Party that people just dig in their heels and just repeat "no collusion" while but I need to find examples of "the other side". Democrats also have a big portion where they didn't read the report, but they put in more effort in promoting literacy at least, illustrated in the Politico article. Still, this passage has a small taste of "both sides" and it probably needs to be substantiated to demonstrate "both sides". 04:48, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Can you explain a bit clearer. Both sides of what? What is the opposite of "no collusion"? "Yes collusion"? The report doesn't say that. nobs''Die fascists! Make America Great! 04:55, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I mean the article summarizes that the reaction to the report underscores the tribalism. While there is a degree of truth that both sides (Dems and Repubs for simplicity sake) do tend to jump to conclusions, to say or imply that they commit in the same degree (which the passage has done) is misleading. From the article, I've seen more tribalism and loyalty from Repubs, given that one Repub guy that wanted impeachment and that read the report just got piled on from his party, and Imo the Dems are actually arguing with each other how to proceed with the report and they put more effort into getting people to read the report. This is what I gathered from the article. 05:38, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Huh? One Repub went against the report and wants to impeach, while only 137 of 231 Dems went against the report and want to impeach. If I were a Dem, I'd say that almost makes sense. nobs''Die fascists! Make America Great! 08:15, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * my pointwas primarily that the report itself just made people bury themselves in their corners without actually reading or understanding the reports content. --RipCityLiberal (talk) 21:36, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Can we find examples? I know later in the article, there are people who said to not have read the report and formed an opinion. We should refer to that passage to supplement those claims. 23:28, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm sure we could but is it really necessary. Reading this report, any person with a semblance of knowledge could see these acts meeting the standard of High Crimes and Misdemeanors. Instead it has fallen by the wayside because it is a little complicated and also because the WH has stonewalled virtually all cooperation. Maybe you have a suggestion for a better way to phrase it (an aside, thank you for your contributions to the page it is vastly improved.)--RipCityLiberal (talk) 17:10, 25 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Yah, right here. He's twice reverted factual and cited information. You're a Mod, can't you do something about it? nobs''Die fascists! Make America Great! 23:41, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * That's something you and GrammarCommie need to work out. Don't drag me into another section of contention. 23:45, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * How many reverts do I got? He's done two and I've done one in the past couple of hours. He has habit of disrupting talk discussions between me & RipCity on these three specific Mueller cases, as well. nobs''Die fascists! Make America Great! 23:51, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * That's something you and GrammarCommie need to work out. Don't drag me into another section of contention. 23:45, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thee's no contention here, just you showing your tribal identity. nobs''Die fascists! Make America Great! 23:56, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Robbity Robby Rob... I'm just trying to to protect you from potential conflicts of interest, given your insanely rigid devotion to Donald Trump... 00:00, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I have no insanely rigid devotion to Trump. I'm an anti-communist. nobs''Die fascists! Make America Great! 02:49, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Ahem
Judge Throws Out Guilty Verdict for Flynn Partner and Acquits. nobs''Die fascists! Make America Great! 21:40, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Unrelated.--RipCityLiberal (talk) 16:55, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * If it's unrelated, why do your put it in mainspace? nobsI'm dumbstrzok! 00:01, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * because it doesn't matter they way you intended to frame it. The decision is highly unusual, considering it wasn't overturned on appeal.--RipCityLiberal (talk) 15:11, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes indeed the decision is highly unusual, a judge overturning a jury verdict. His reasons seem almost the same as in the Arthur Anderson case, prosecuted by the same Andrew Wiessmann, by a 9-0 SCOTUS verdict. nobsI'm dumbstrzok! 16:09, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Allegedly
Get the fuck out of here with that bullshit --RipCityLiberal (talk) 22:56, 25 September 2019 (UTC)


 * You can't say Flynn had a plan to kidnap. Neither was Flynn charged with conspiracy to kidnap. Neither does any of that lunacy appear in the underlying documents. It is defamatory. nobsI'm dumbstrzok! 23:58, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * What do those fucking sources I included say.--RipCityLiberal (talk) 15:10, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Vox is not the Mueller Report. Flynn was not charged with the defamatory bullshit you and Vox allege. nobsI'm dumbstrzok! 16:04, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Seeing as how you actually haven't read the report, I doubt you would know if it was included. Regardless the charge adds context that Mr. Flynn has a plethora of instances where actions he chose to take threatened the national security of the United States, and he chose to act in a manner violating the Logan Act. I'm also clear in the section in question that this charge is connected to Flynn, not necessarily the direct result of the Mueller investigation. There is also reporting about this charge from The Guardian, Vice, The Wall Street Journal and the BBC.--RipCityLiberal (talk) 20:02, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * They all use the term 'alleged.' If Mueller prosecutors thought there was substance to it, they would have used. They don't. You are defaming a living person in Rationalwiki mainspace. nobsI'm dumbstrzok! 20:12, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * What do you think?--RipCityLiberal (talk) 22:19, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Rob says fake shit all the time and expects people to believe it, why is it different when we do it? Even if the Muller report doesn't directly implicate Trump & Co in collusion, it's pretty damning due to the blatant obstruction and outright criminal attempts to interfer with an ongoing investigation. It's very easy to see it as Trump being guilty of the charges. 22:50, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Need your thoughts as well.--RipCityLiberal (talk) 23:26, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I mean the whole "directly implicate" part is only because we set a really high bar for things, and it's all strict legal caveats. We didn't exactly reach the moon, but we do have the stars around us, and that should be enough to cause alarm. We can't let Trump continue putting his foot in the door of corruption. 23:27, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Oh for fuck’s sake nobs; you do realise that the reason these sources use the ”alleged” or ”allegedly” is that the matter concerns an ongoing trial, right? I.e. that Flynn is literally facing these allegations in a court of law, but has not (yet) been convicted? The use of ”alleged” or ”allegedly” in this manner is standard cautionary practice in any media reference to matters pertaining to ongoing trials, no matter how preponderant the evidence might be. Please tell me that you aren’t as thick or desperate so as to not understand this. ScepticWombat (talk) 00:49, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Sceptic, Thanks for at least trying to answer the question. The rest, way to go not addresing the quaestion at all.
 * - your input is needed. You made an interesting coop case over efforts to defend the wiki from publishing false allegations about a living person and fake news. I admire your purpose, but the consensus was the the evidence was a bit of stretch. In this case, Gen. Michael Flynn was not charged with conspiracy to kidnap after being investigated, yet the mainspace says point blank he had some kidnapping plot - a very serious charge. I'm sure you'll agree the term "alleged" belongs here, in spite of the fact Mueller investigators don't even mention an alleged kidnapping plot in the report. nobsI'm dumbstrzok! 05:48, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Take to the coop if you think you've got a chance, . Bongolian (talk) 06:56, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not alleging a personal offense or misconduct here. I'm concerned about the integrity of the wiki. Glad to see your doing your job in the same incompetent partisan manner as usual. nobsI'm dumbstrzok! 08:11, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I need to know how to proceed here. It pains me to say Rob may have a point, but from the reporting I've read, I'm unwilling to change the language that in context I believe is accurate. Additionally I'm unwilling to make the change because the initial edit wasn't in this part, but another section, and I'm afraid that conceding this point will allow Rob to argue we need to put "Alleged" throughout this entire page, even though on the record interviews would suffice, especially when many of the explosive elements of this report don't require a legal determination, yet.--RipCityLiberal (talk) 15:27, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Well thank you. No, that is not the objective. It's my gut instinct Flynn will walk (like his partner just did) and whole sections will need to be revived. The cases in the subsection would have to revived into simple, straight forward sentences. And piling on innuendo about "kidnappings" then will appear just petty and vicious. nobsI'm dumbstrzok! 16:32, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * If I'm I'm wrong you can say "Flynn was convicted on all counts" so long as its clear kidnapping wasn't one of them. nobsI'm dumbstrzok! 16:39, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I mean, if we just went whole hog and put "allegedly" everywhere, it would be pretty funny. (Allegedly.) 16:35, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Please note that my post was not in favour of indiscriminately slapping alleged(ly) all over the place as the media hedging is more of an over cautious convention employed in relation to specific points under judicial scrutiny, rather than an ironclad necessity.

Overly hedging throughout the article would create an unreasonable impression of uncertainty and underplay the well documented and sourced aspects already in place. Whether such things will result in outright convictions have no bearing of their shady and unsavoury character.

To draw a parallel to a somewhat similar example: Nixon was not actually impeached (because he resigned) and was subsequently pardoned before any formal conviction could be reached, but that doesn’t mean we have to plaster our articles on Tricky Dick and Watergate with alleged(ly)s. ScepticWombat (talk) 19:24, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Accuracy, confidence, and clarity are components of good writing. 19:38, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, whole heartedly. Impeached = indicted. The three presidents who have been, none have been convicted. One removed himself from office.
 * Correction, Nixon was not impeached by a vote of the full House. He resigned before that to avoid being impeached. The committee voted Articles, that's all. He figured he'd fail in both the House and Senate. nobsI'm dumbstrzok! 20:51, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I did not intend to imply that to be your position, merely to point out how overuse of the term has its own implications. Also that it looks funny. 12:55, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I didn’t think you did, so no worries and as you see I share your point of view, but it seemed as if nobs perceived my post as a support for (over) hedging the text. ScepticWombat (talk) 14:54, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * No, I'm just talking about the Flynn and Rafekian entries regarding kidnapping; it'll look awfully silly in a few weeks when Flynn walks. nobsI'm dumbstrzok! 23:25, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * What happens if he doesn't walk? What then? Will you admit flaw? Or will ye twist like a serpent to avoid the truth? Further, if your reason be naught but ego and the commitment to innocence like a love-struck maiden, then thou may be bereft of thine faculties 23:45, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * We'll have some idea after October 14. If he doesn't, it will be even more unfair, and make the prosecutors look bad if they let a guy off who was leading a violent criminal conspiracy with only lying to an FBI agent who got fired for political bias. nobsI'm dumbstrzok! 06:57, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Rob, let me be blunt. You aren't concerned with undue bias, you want the bias to swing to the complete opposite position because that is what you subscribe to. To you, people like Trump and Flynn are innocent even if proven guilty, because they have the magic R. 15:42, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Trump does not enter into this conversation. Why do betray your own bias by fantasizing Trump's name when F-L-Y-N-N is spelled out in plain text? nobsI'm dumbstrzok! 00:00, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Because if it weren't for Trump you wouldn't give a shit about Flynn. I know why you're going to the hilt for Flynn, and it isn't because you give a damn about integrity or innocence. It's because if Flynn falls Trump is in danger, and we can't have that now can we? 00:21, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * You're right. I don't give a shit about Flynn. He's a Democrat. I'm trying to protect the wiki when all this shit will have to be ripped out in a few weeks, anyway.
 * You evidently don't understand the facts of the case: he's already been convicted. He's been awaiting sentencing for two years. In two weeks, Mueller's prosecutors have to show cause why they shouldn't be held in contempt unless they produce the evidence of misuse of the FISA database, i.e. illegal domestic spying or 'FISA abuse'. Attn. General Barr is working on two overlapping declassification orders with some of the same evidence - the Horowitz Report and the Presidential E.O. declassification order. So maybe they can avoid a contempt citation by delivering partial evidence, and delay another 30 days. Maybe they'll tell the judge "fuck you" and he'll hold them in contempt right there and let Flynn walk.
 * Why do you think Democrats are starting impeachment proceeding? Cause they're trying to get ahead of all this shit about to come out.
 * Back to Flynn case: When the same judge overturned Sen. Stevens conviction,
 * Sullivan expressed concern and anger regarding prosecutorial conduct and related issues. Holder, who had taken office only three months earlier, was reportedly very angry at the prosecutors' apparent withholding of exculpatory evidence, and wanted to send a message that prosecutorial misconduct would not be tolerated under his watch. After Sullivan held the prosecutors in contempt, Holder replaced the entire trial team...judge Sullivan formally accepted Holder's motion to set aside the verdict and throw out the indictment, declaring "There was never a judgment of conviction in this case. The jury's verdict is being set aside and has no legal effect," and calling it the worst case of prosecutorial misconduct he'd ever seen.[110] He also initiated a criminal contempt investigation of six members of the prosecution. Although an internal probe by the Office of Professional Responsibility was already underway, Sullivan said he was not willing to trust it due to the "shocking and disturbing" nature of the misconduct.[111]
 * Word is, Judge Sullivan is sick of DOJ corruption that wasn't cleaned up 10 years when he ordered a special investigation into the prosecutors for prosecutorial misconduct. It's hard to imagine, but the Flynn case is even worse.
 * Oh, and remember, Flynn's partner walked last week. nobsI'm dumbstrzok! 02:05, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh, and remember, Flynn's partner walked last week. nobsI'm dumbstrzok! 02:05, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Literally none of what you said is based on reality, only a fiction of justice that you simultaneously attack and revere based on how it's actions align with your political opinions.--RipCityLiberal (talk) 16:41, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I doubt you read Judge Sullivan's order. And when Judge Sullivan ordered a criminal investigation into the prosecutors, it ended with one killing himself.
 * The facts in the Stevens case are the same as in the Flynn case: Brady rule violations. But in the Stevens case the evidence was the contractor working on his house or some shit; in the Flynn case its the same evidence in the FISA report and POTUS EO.
 * Can you imagine? A professional Washington DOJ career prosecutor killing himself over receipts he hid from a contractor or some shit, just to rig an election? Judge Sullivan has seen this shit before. I'm sure he feels some professional responsibility at this point. nobsI'm dumbstrzok! 02:31, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Holy fuck you're delusional. This is the same judge that straight up said, on the record "You sold your country out" to Flynn and asked the prosecutors if they were considering treason. This is the dude you think will vindicate your insane theories? Lol.--RipCityLiberal (talk) 04:35, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * (A) The judge was reading the indictment; (B) The judge was acting without bias (now on the record). nobsI'm dumbstrzok! 15:22, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * You're so wrong it's actually hilarious
 * "From the start, U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan made clear he was infuriated by Flynn’s conduct — both in lying to the FBI while in the White House and in working to advance the interests of the Turkish government while he was a part of Trump’s campaign.


 * The judge seemed to take particular umbrage at the suggestion made by Flynn and his supporters, just before the sentencing, that he had been duped by the FBI. Early in the hearing, Sullivan forced Flynn to admit publicly that he knew lying to the bureau was illegal and that he was guilty of a crime. Later, the judge pointed to an American flag in his D.C. courtroom as he berated the former three-star general for his misdeeds.


 * “Arguably, that undermines everything this flag over here stands for,” the judge said. “Arguably, you sold your country out.”
 * The prosecutors were shocked he went that far.RipCityLiberal (talk) 15:33, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Yah well he also apologized and ordered all documents phones, texts, and emails of all ''prosecutors' be preserved as evidence. nobsI'm dumbstrzok! 15:50, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * BREAKING: More evidence of prosecutorial misconducted presented in open court yesterday. Looks like Prosecutor Van Graak really has his nuts in a vice now.
 * Flynn attorneys were able to get into the record the reversal in the Rafekian case, which led to presentation of a shitload of other evidence, pointing to more prosecutorial misconduct, i.e. asking Flynn to lie, blackmailing Flynn to plead guilty based on threats to his son, etc etc. Need a summary? nobsI'm dumbstrzok! 16:56, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Lol [https://www.politico.com/news/2019/10/01/prosecutors-urge-judge-to-reject-fishing-expedition-by-flynns-defense-015013}
 * Prosecutors argued that the slew of records Flynn’s defense is demanding is largely irrelevant to the task before the judge of fashioning a sentence for the crime Flynn admitted to under oath in federal court in December 2017.


 * “The defendant predicates much of his request on conspiracy theories, demanding that the government engage in a fishing expedition for documents that could offer support for those theories. Irrespective of whether such documents exist, a fact that the government does not concede here, the defendant fails to establish that such information is relevant—let alone favorable and material—in this criminal case,” says the prosecution brief, signed by former Mueller prosecutor Brandon Van Grack.


 * The prosecution submission says many of the topics the defense is demanding information on don’t ultimately bear on Flynn’s admission that he lied to a pair of FBI agents in a January 2017 interview, particularly when he denied speaking with the Russian ambassador during the presidential transition.
 * My emphasis, and the prosecution is spot on, this is a fishing expedition.RipCityLiberal (talk) 19:46, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * HAHAHA! After spreading conspiracy theories about Flynn being involved in a kidnapping plot but failing to bring charges, MSNBC reports "Federal prosecutors have accused Michael Flynn, President Trump's fmr. national security adviser, of trafficking in conspiracy theories." nobsI'm dumbstrzok! 17:37, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Funny because that isn't in the charge at all, it's something Flynn copped to...hmm...--RipCityLiberal (talk) 19:21, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Well duh. What is the source of the allegation that Flynn conspired to kidnap? FBI? Mueller team? Huh? nobsI'm dumbstrzok! 19:23, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * How about one of Flynn's buds
 * "former CIA director, Flynn associate, and Trump campaign advisor Jim Woolsey told reporters the ex-general had discussed ways to engineer an unusual (and possibly extra-legal) extradition of Gulen at a meeting with Turkish officials in September 2016. Woolsey said he was concerned by this talk and raised the matter with then-Vice President Joe Biden through a friend. Reports since suggest there may have been a second meeting in December 2016 in which sone kind of kidnapping plot was discussed—after Flynn was chosen to be Trump’s National Security Advisor."
 * If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck and discusses extralegal measures to kidnap another duck for his Turkish employers...--RipCityLiberal (talk) 19:31, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Your Vox citation cites the WSJ which is this article:

Seems pretty clear the Mueller team was illegally leaking investigatory information to the media, denying Flynn's right to a fair and impartial jury. Go to journalism school to learn the use of the word "allegedly" if you want to pretend to be a writer. nobsI'm dumbstrzok! 19:33, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * And your "kidnapping" allegation is total bullshit; with legal extradition available to the Trump administration, why would Flynn "kidnap"? The allegation is a quid pro quo, legal extradition (i.e. "forcible removal") in exchange for a million dollar+ bribe. jezuz god you are a naive propagandist, who insults your readers as being as stupid as you.


 * The allegation follows the Joe Biden/Hunter Biden precedent; Flynn Jr., would get paid by Turkey for Pa delivering the goods. nobsI'm dumbstrzok! 19:37, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Mueller wasn't the only one investigating it, and the leak is definitely not illegal. Also you can't compare this to the Biden's at all. And any attempt to do is peddling into a delusional conspiracy theory and bullshit "both sides"-ism which DOES NOT EXIST.--RipCityLiberal (talk) 20:01, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * (A) Show a cite that some law enforcement agency was investigating Flynn before the Mueller/FBI leak to the WSJ on allegations related to Gulen; (B) Why was Michael Flynn, Jr. investigated by Mueller? none of it was related to Russia; it was all related to a NATO ally, Russia's nemesis. nobsI'm dumbstrzok! 20:07, 2 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Read the headline: "ex-Trump adviser and his son were to be paid millions";


 * Then follow the Biden-Ukraine timeline:
 * 18 April 2014. Hunter Biden is hired to the board of Ukraine's largest energy company, Burisma Holdings.[76][77][78] It is owned by oligarch Mykola Zlochevsky, one of several subjects of the Ukrainian corruption probe.
 * 22 April 2014. Vice President Joe Biden traveled to Ukraine,[79] offering his political support and $50 million in aid for the new shaky government. nobsI'm dumbstrzok! 20:24, 2 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Can I robrail this now? 20:25, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Please do, this no longer is about the page, and is simply more delusional conspiracy spinning bullshit.--RipCityLiberal (talk) 21:20, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay, all this conversation or starting somewhere more specific? 21:26, 2 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Make sure you end it right here: Simple investigatory logic has short-circuited both yours' and Rip's brain, judging by both your reactions. nobsI'm dumbstrzok! 21:42, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * No your delusional off topic conspiracy theory is the reason.--RipCityLiberal (talk) 21:49, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok, back to the point: show a cite that says Flynn was being investigated by law enforcement for conspiring for the "forcible removal" of Gulen in exchange for cash paid to him and his son before the WSJ reported on it sourced to "people familiar" with the Mueller investigation? nobsI'm dumbstrzok! 21:54, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Considering the page doesn't say anything about being investigated about the kidnapping plot, I'd say your request is immaterial.--RipCityLiberal (talk) 22:00, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes it does, in the paragraph on Rafekian. I haven't even objected to the term "kidnapping," which was extrapolated from "forcible removal" by Vox and other MSM from the defamatory leak by the Mueller team that violated Flynn's right to a fair and impartial trial. The simple insertion of "alleged" could have avoided this whole discussion. With that one simple word added, you and Rationalwiki will look only like incompetent idiots, rather than biased incompetent partisan idiots. nobsI'm dumbstrzok! 22:21, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * No it says: "Gulen has been blamed by the Turkish government for the attempted Turkish coup in 2016, and was the target of a kidnapping scheme by Flynn."--RipCityLiberal (talk) 22:30, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * All you need to do is insert the word "alleged;" unless of course, somehow you are sympathetic to the enemies of NATO and wish to break it apart by defending someone whom a NATO ally accuses of trying to overthrow a legitimate government and attack a decorated American military veteran with a 33 year service record. You must be a Russian. bot. nobsI'm dumbstrzok! 23:01, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok. 23:14, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Shit hits the fan, Round 1

 * In 2017 FISA Judge Rosemary Collyer released a report showing the FBI was abusing the NSA database with unlawful FISA(702) search queries (timeframe 2016). In this 2018 opinion, released October 2019, FISA Judge James Boasberg outlines the same and similar activity continued throughout 2017/2018. This is the period of Mueller's investigative activity.

FBI’s Use of Surveillance Database Violated Americans’ Privacy Rights, Court Found, Wall Street Journal, Oct. 8, 2019.

Judge Boasberg reviewed 2017 through March 2018.

Mueller Report, Page 13:
 * For more than the past year, the FBI also embedded personnel at the Office who did not work on the Special Counsel’s investigation, but whose purpose was to review the results of the investigation and to send—in writing—summaries of foreign intelligence and counterintelligence information to FBI HQ and FBI Field Offices. nobsI'm dumbstrzok! 23:35, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah this doesn't mean what you think it means.--RipCityLiberal (talk) 23:57, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * We have people going over the document right now. Important to remember, the Mueller report dated March 2019 page 13 reads "For more than the past year..."; Judge Boasberg rulings cover the period of the Trump Transition up to March 2018. This includes the period of Mueller's appointment (May 18, 2017 up to March 2018, when Mueller began embedding FBI personnel to review foreign intelligence and counterintelligence information and provide summaries.
 * I note this now cause I don't want this to get lost in the avalanche of damning information about to come out. nobsI'm dumbstrzok! 02:57, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * You mean standard operating procedure when a domestic and counterintelligence operation have overlap? You do you man, none of it matters.--RipCityLiberal (talk) 15:13, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Looks like both Mueller and Rosenstein have their nuts in a vice now. nobsI'm dumbstrzok! 16:24, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Get help.--RipCityLiberal (talk) 19:34, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Round 2, Brennan and Clapper's nuts in a vice
One specific charge is Brennan's false statement under oath that the Steele dossier ("Crown materials") played no part in the January 6, 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment, whereas Comey has already fingered Brennan in an email that Brennan insisted 2 pages from the pee-pee memo be included. nobsNo border! No Wall! No USA at All! 16:49, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Round 3 Flynn was framed
Sidney Powell just ripped the Mueller investigation to shreds. It won't take long for Judge Sullivan to make a final ruling - may even be before Horowitz's FISA abuse report on Obama's Nixonian political spying is released. nobsNo border! No Wall! No USA at All! 16:49, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Lol
None of this matters, the Daily Caller is not valid source. Also there is nothing about what criminality they are investigating, when that investigation began, or who may be the target. But the reporting is a nice change of pace from Mulvaney admitting to a crime, Bill Taylor providing evidence of a crime, Giuliani facing an impending indictment and Trump generally melting into a puddle before our very eyes.--RipCityLiberal (talk) 19:21, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * It would be great if the database of all American phone calls didn't exist, the FISA court was just a regular fucking court instead, and nobs apologized for his treason. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 19:50, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * When Flynn walks, Mifsud is revealed as a Western asset, Brennan is charged, and the whole Crossfire Hurricane and Mueller investigation are revealed as the house of cards that it is, it's too bad I can't use my flat screen with this mainspace page open to wipe my ass with. I'll have to buy a printer jet for the first time in years to do that. nobsNo border! No Wall! No USA at All! 20:49, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Flynn is going to prison, Misfud is not an asset, Brennan can't be charged with anything, and the Mueller Investigation is based in facts, not in the absurd ramblings of Rudy Giuliani or the syphilitic ramblings of Trump.--RipCityLiberal (talk) 23:21, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/22/us/politics/russia-investigation-inspector-general-report.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage Eat shit.--RipCityLiberal (talk) 23:12, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

"The prosecutor handpicked by Attorney General William P. Barr to scrutinize how U.S. agencies investigated President Trump’s 2016 campaign said he could not offer evidence to the Justice Department’s inspector general to support the suspicions of some conservatives that the case was a setup by American intelligence, people familiar with the matter said.

Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz’s office contacted U.S. Attorney John Durham, the prosecutor Barr personally tapped to lead a separate review of the 2016 probe into possible coordination between the Trump campaign and Russia, the people said. The inspector general also contacted several U.S. intelligence agencies.

Among Horowitz’s questions: whether a Maltese professor who interacted with a Trump campaign adviser was actually a U.S. intelligence asset deployed to ensnare the campaign, the people said, speaking on the condition of anonymity because the inspector general’s findings have not been made public." How you feeling fuck face?RipCityLiberal (talk) 18:35, 5 December 2019 (UTC)