Court approves a six-month extension for the Grand Jury

[haymarket]

Why not send in the rubber hoses and just beat it out of him?

I realize that if the shoe was on the other foot, Trump would love to do just that. But our side is the side of constitutional rights and due process and such methods are unacceptable.

 

[Deuce]

Why should we strap on seatbelts? Snore.
Honestly, if Mueller has nothing by now, the delay is
nothing more than a fishing expedition.

Assuming Mueller has "nothing by now" is laughable on its face.

 

[Deuce]

I thought this was about Russian collusion. Sounds to me like it has become a process to simply destroy a sitting president and you are all for it. I suspect that you arent a hypocrite and will call for a special council to thoroughly investigate the next democratic president with equal fervor, right?

I want crimes to be investigated based on where the evidence leads. Why, did you want something different?

 

[Roadvirus]

Mueller needs to either **** or get off the pot. Either say Trump is guilty of "collusion" or is not.

The longer this BS goes on, the more people are going to become convinced that he has nothing on Trump related to "Russian election meddling" and is just dragging it out to find crap for the Dems to use in their "investigations".

 

[washunut]

Mueller needs to either **** or get off the pot. Either say Trump is guilty of "collusion" or is not.

The longer this BS goes on, the more people are going to become convinced that he has nothing on Trump related to "Russian election meddling" and is just dragging it out to find crap for the Dems to use in their "investigations".

Not sure this was ever about collusion,whatever that is. If it were Steele would have been brought before the grand jury a long time ago.

 

[Deuce]

Mueller needs to either **** or get off the pot. Either say Trump is guilty of "collusion" or is not.

The longer this BS goes on, the more people are going to become convinced that he has nothing on Trump related to "Russian election meddling" and is just dragging it out to find crap for the Dems to use in their "investigations".

I think investigations of this magnitude should be able to run their course properly and shouldn't base their timeline on public opinion. Don't you?

 

[Harshaw]

This:

Assuming Mueller has "nothing by now" is laughable on its face.

Flies in the face of this:

I want crimes to be investigated based on where the evidence leads. Why, did you want something different?

What exactly do you think Mueller has, and on what evidence do you base it?

After all, you think the idea that he has nothing is "laughable on its face," so you think he has something. What? And why?

 

[Deuce]

This:



Flies in the face of this:



What exactly do you think Mueller has, and on what evidence do you base it?

After all, you think the idea that he has nothing is "laughable on its face," so you think he has something. What? And why?

A bunch of people are going to jail already. On what planet do you reside where that just doesn't count?

 

[Harshaw]

A bunch of people are going to jail already. On what planet do you reside where that just doesn't count?

It's pretty clear that the post you were responding to was saying he didn't have anything on Trump.

 

[Deuce]

It's pretty clear that the post you were responding to was saying he didn't have anything on Trump.

Which post? You quoted two of mine which were responses to two different people. Because Trix didn't mention Trump.

 

[Harshaw]

Which post? You quoted two of mine which were responses to two different people. Because Trix didn't mention Trump.

But it's clear she was referring to him.

She's definitely referring to a report which hasn't come yet, which is a separate thing from the indictments already issued.

You never answered -- what do you think he has (and has not yet reported), and on what do you base it?

 

[Deuce]

But it's clear she was referring to him.

She's definitely referring to a report which hasn't come yet, which is a separate thing from the indictments already issued.

You never answered -- what do you think he has (and has not yet reported), and on what do you base it?

If she is referring solely to Trump, she's making the same mistake most Trumpers do. See, they have this idea that Mueller's investigation is about "getting Trump," and that colors their perception of everything. Mueller is investigating Russian efforts to influence an American election, and can investigate other crimes that are uncovered as a result of that investigation. (although we've seen Mueller kick back some of that to Federal courts) Personally, I would not assign this opinion to Trix for her. She can speak for herself.

A bunch of people are going to jail, therefore Mueller has provably already found "something." Period.

Therefore the two statements you quoted are not contradictory. Mueller's investigation has found plenty, and continues to find things. It should be allowed to run its course. Do you agree?

Now, we don't know what Mueller has on Trump specifically at this stage, if anything. Surely you'd agree with that also. This would also be an indication that it is faulty to assume Mueller has nothing on Trump.

 

[Harshaw]

If she is referring solely to Trump, she's making the same mistake most Trumpers do. See, they have this idea that Mueller's investigation is about "getting Trump," and that colors their perception of everything. Mueller is investigating Russian efforts to influence an American election, and can investigate other crimes that are uncovered as a result of that investigation. (although we've seen Mueller kick back some of that to Federal courts) Personally, I would not assign this opinion to Trix for her. She can speak for herself.

A bunch of people are going to jail, therefore Mueller has provably already found "something." Period.

Therefore the two statements you quoted are not contradictory. Mueller's investigation has found plenty, and continues to find things. It should be allowed to run its course. Do you agree?

Now, we don't know what Mueller has on Trump specifically at this stage, if anything. Surely you'd agree with that also. This would also be an indication that it is faulty to assume Mueller has nothing on Trump.

I do agree with that, which is why it's not "laughable on its face" that he has nothing. To say so is to assume he has something.

 

[Deuce]

I do agree with that, which is why it's not "laughable on its face" that he has nothing. To say so is to assume he has something.

You know that mistake I mentioned? You're doing it. You're assuming I was referring solely to Trump and that Trix was also.

 

[Harshaw]

You know that mistake I mentioned? You're doing it. You're assuming I was referring solely to Trump and that Trix was also.

I don't think you read what I wrote very well.

But it's clear she was referring to him.

She's definitely referring to a report which hasn't come yet, which is a separate thing from the indictments already issued.

You never answered -- what do you think he has (and has not yet reported), and on what do you base it?

As there is no way to know what is to come, it is not "laughable on its face" to assume there's nothing. It may be incorrect. But it's not laughable, and certainly not "on its face." Based on what we know, and that is, know, not speculate, no assumption is any less likely than any other, because we basically know nothing.

Again, to say it's "laughable" is to assume he has something. And I think you do assume he has something. You just don't say what, or why.