███████████ Mueller Investigation Results Thread ███████████

[Boxlicker101]

Here's another one...

The report says that Russia hacked at least 2 voting systems in Florida. Florida officials want a briefing on exactly what happened, as they should. If part of that info implicates 45, do they still have a right to protect their state's voting system against the Putins?

Apparently, they also hacked as they pleased into Hillary's computer. :eek http://oneclickpdfsearch.com/search...0clinton&chnm=1clickpdf&chnm2=Safari&chnm3=US

 

[Luk]

Apparently, they also hacked as they pleased into Hillary's computer. :eek http://oneclickpdfsearch.com/search...0clinton&chnm=1clickpdf&chnm2=Safari&chnm3=US

Shaddup, dipshit. You vomit "HILLARY" in almost every fucking thread.

 

[Hal9000_]

Shaddup, dipshit. You vomit "HILLARY" in almost every fucking thread.

O....

BAMA

 

[Boxlicker101]

Shaddup, dipshit. You vomit "HILLARY" in almost every fucking thread.

When it comes to criminal negligence with computers, Silly Hilly is the poster child.

 

[phrodeau]

Here's another one...

The report says that Russia hacked at least 2 voting systems in Florida. Florida officials want a briefing on exactly what happened, as they should. If part of that info implicates 45, do they still have a right to protect their state's voting system against the Putins?

I would be curious if any meddling happened inside a particular district of Palm Beach.

 

[Luk]

When it comes to criminal negligence with computers, Silly Hilly is the poster child.

I told you to shaddup, dipshit.

 

[Luk]

I would be curious if any meddling happened inside a particular district of Palm Beach.

Where illegals work?

 

[butters]

When it comes to criminal negligence with computers, Silly Hilly is the poster child.

well i guess trump's children and some of his top staffers didn't learn anything from that since they went on to use their phones and public, non-protected platforms to discuss official business that should have been kept to encrypted and protected channels only.

 

[KeithD]

well i guess trump's children and some of his top staffers didn't learn anything from that since they went on to use their phones and public, non-protected platforms to discuss official business that should have been kept to encrypted and protected channels only.

Right on. Is it worse to do it early in the experience of e-mail usage as Clinton did (doing it for security because the State Department system is a sieve and NSA refused to give her a secure system) or after everything happened with that and you are the president, his daughter, and his son-in-law and just dump it all in the open without trying to secure it at all? We all know the answer to that one--except maybe Box, who doesn't seem to be aware of much of anything at all.

Of course the Trumpettes here will blatantly and outrageously lie about simply everything.

 

[BotanyBoy]

well i guess trump's children and some of his top staffers didn't learn anything from that since they went on to use their phones and public, non-protected platforms to discuss official business that should have been kept to encrypted and protected channels only.

Right on. Is it worse to do it early in the experience of e-mail usage as Clinton did (doing it for security because the State Department system is a sieve and NSA refused to give her a secure system) or after everything happened with that and you are the president, his daughter, and his son-in-law and just dump it all in the open without trying to secure it at all? We all know the answer to that one--except maybe Box, who doesn't seem to be aware of much of anything at all.

Of course the Trumpettes here will blatantly and outrageously lie about simply everything.

Neither of you seem to understand the difference between official business and classified documents.

One is a crime to steal, the other is not.

 

[Rightguide]

Apparently, they also hacked as they pleased into Hillary's computer. :eek http://oneclickpdfsearch.com/search...0clinton&chnm=1clickpdf&chnm2=Safari&chnm3=US

As did a couple of other governments.

 

[icanhelp1]

Right on. Is it worse to do it early in the experience of e-mail usage as Clinton did (doing it for security because the State Department system is a sieve and NSA refused to give her a secure system) or after everything happened with that and you are the president, his daughter, and his son-in-law and just dump it all in the open without trying to secure it at all? We all know the answer to that one--except maybe Box, who doesn't seem to be aware of much of anything at all.

Of course the Trumpettes here will blatantly and outrageously lie about simply everything.

Do you actually read what you write. You're allowed your own devices. Clinton, by law has to conduct state business on a state .GOV server for security reasons. Take a few minutes and read 18 U.S. code 1924 and state department protocol. She didn't even open a .gov server and was communicating with Obama and other dept heads. She conducting foundation business and was hiding that fact. Crooked Hillary!!

 

[icanhelp1]

well i guess trump's children and some of his top staffers didn't learn anything from that since they went on to use their phones and public, non-protected platforms to discuss official business that should have been kept to encrypted and protected channels only.

That's possible and they corrected that, they were new to politics and protocol. Hillary was in the white house for 8 years and in the senate for 4 more years. She knew full well what the law states. For Comey to state no "ill intent" is the biggest bunch of bullshit in the annals of history. To delete subpoenaed e-mails is as clear an example of obstruction of justice as you can get. But the Clinton FBI looked the other way. How the FBI handled Clinton early on is why some are going to jail. They broke every investigative FBI protocol to make sure she was protected. When Lynch determined it to be a 'MATTER' even after meeting with uncle Bill, was as big a mistake as you can make as AG. Session's had to recuse himself for less. The absolute most ridiculous question ever was Blumenthal's asking Barr to recuse himself from the Mueller investigation. Blumenthal; a senator who was charged in the court of opinion for stolen valor by true Vietnam vets just goes to show you the obvious double standard in the senate. He should have been censured and removed from the judiciary committee, a committee of honor. In the webster dictionary next to the word "HYPOCRITE" is a picture of slimeball Blumenthal.

THE CHICKENS ARE COMING HOME TO ROOST

 

[Liar]

That's possible and they corrected that, they were new to politics and protocol.

Sorry, they get no pass for it when they literally campaigned on criticizing their opponent for exactly that.

 

[zipman]

Sorry, they get no pass for it when they literally campaigned on criticizing their opponent for exactly that.

No they haven't.

And Trump still is using an unsecured phone all the time.

 

[silver gurl]

Didn't Barr work for Nixon during Watergate?

Yup.

 

[Que]

Right on. Is it worse to do it early in the experience of e-mail usage as Clinton did (doing it for security because the State Department system is a sieve and NSA refused to give her a secure system) or after everything happened with that and you are the president, his daughter, and his son-in-law and just dump it all in the open without trying to secure it at all? We all know the answer to that one--except maybe Box, who doesn't seem to be aware of much of anything at all.

Of course the Trumpettes here will blatantly and outrageously lie about simply everything.

You're an absolute pathological liar. You consistently make up things just to make them up. Not even Hillary Clinton alleged that she did it for security reasons because the state department computers are less secure than the one in her damn bathroom.

You're a complete idiot. If you're going to make something up, make it make sense.

Take your shit to the story ideas section where it belongs.

 

[HisArpy]

Didn't Barr work for Nixon during Watergate?

Yup.

Which should tell you that he has sufficient experience to know what went right and what went wrong.

 

[Carnal_Flower]

Exactly.

What went wrong: He didn't cover it up in the right way. He learned. By the time IranContra rolled around, he was better. Now he's at the top of his corrupt game.

Which should tell you that he has sufficient experience to know what went right and what went wrong.

 

[Carnal_Flower]

For those defending Barr one can only presume they agree that a President has the "constitutional" right to shut down any investigation he or she believes is unwarranted.

Applies to Dem Presidents, too. So if Hillary was Prez, she could have shut down the e-mail investigation since she "knew" it was a false charge and she was being "falsely accused." And you would have to be ok with that.

 

[HisArpy]

Exactly.

What went wrong: He didn't cover it up in the right way. He learned. By the time IranContra rolled around, he was better. Now he's at the top of his corrupt game.

Cite?

I ask, because absent factual evidence to the contrary, it is PRESUMED that government official acted within the course and scope of their lawful duties and conducted themselves lawfully.

So, do you have a cite proving that Barr is corrupt? Or is this more of your unsubstantiated malice?

 

[HisArpy]

For those defending Barr one can only presume they agree that a President has the "constitutional" right to shut down any investigation he or she believes is unwarranted.

Applies to Dem Presidents, too. So if Hillary was Prez, she could have shut down the e-mail investigation since she "knew" it was a false charge and she was being "falsely accused." And you would have to be ok with that.

Well, this is a shining example of Failure of Logic 101.

First, Trump didn't "shut down" any investigation. Second, we have legal and historical precedent which firmly establishes that the President CAN INDEED fire anyone who works for him for any reason, even if that's the guy investigating him, so long as he passes the investigation on to someone else and allows it to continue unimpeded.


So, correcting your hypothetical above to mean that H fired the lead dog and replaced that person with another; yes, I'd be fine with it. If she kept on subsequently firing the investigatory team members and failing to employ their replacements, I wouldn't be so okay with it because that would be an obvious attempt at stymying or delaying the investigation in order to control or manipulate the results. Whether that amounts to obstruction would be a decision for the FBI/DOJ to make. And for Congress to deal with AFTER it is determined to be such.

Here's something I would ask you: Would it be okay for Hillary to fire the AG if that person specifically said that they firmly already believed she'd committed a crime and that she was guilty of that crime BEFORE they even began an impeachment level investigation?

If your answer is anything other than "of course she can" then the next question is; why can't Trump do the same?

 

[Luk]

As did a couple of other governments.

45 uses a fucking basic phone. You really are a disingenuous piece of shit.

 

[Carnal_Flower]

Failure of facts 101.

Barr testified in his hearing exactly what I said. A Prez has the constitutional right to shut down any investigation if he "knows" it to be unwarranted. Not replace the lead investigator, but END IT.

No he didnt do it, but again not what I said. Barr testified that he could have.

If you agree with Barr then you accept it applies to all Presidents. And there is nothing about "passing it along to other investigators." No, he said shut it down. End it.

That is the position of the US AG.

Well, this is a shining example of Failure of Logic 101.

First, Trump didn't "shut down" any investigation. Second, we have legal and historical precedent which firmly establishes that the President CAN INDEED fire anyone who works for him for any reason, even if that's the guy investigating him, so long as he passes the investigation on to someone else and allows it to continue unimpeded.


So, correcting your hypothetical above to mean that H fired the lead dog and replaced that person with another; yes, I'd be fine with it. If she kept on subsequently firing the investigatory team members, I wouldn't be so okay with it because that would be an obvious attempt at stymying or delaying the investigation in order to control or manipulate the results. Whether that amounts to obstruction would be a decision for the FBI/DOJ to make. And for Congress to deal with AFTER it is determined to be such.

 

[Rightguide]

You're an absolute pathological liar. You consistently make up things just to make them up. Not even Hillary Clinton alleged that she did it for security reasons because the state department computers are less secure than the one in her damn bathroom.

You're a complete idiot. If you're going to make something up, make it make sense.

Take your shit to the story ideas section where it belongs.

She did it to avoid the strictures of the Federal Records Act. She didn't want her actions to secure the interests of her foundation and other nefarious activities while Secretary of State to be a matter of record as required by law, (44 USC Sections 3101 through 3107).