• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Warning Sign For All the President’s Men and Him

No, it's just a literal interpretation of the words forming the term CT.

Consider President Bush's comments in that regard at the UN in late 2001 with his hallmark dyslexia: "Let us never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories concerning the attacks of September 11; malicious lies that attempt to shift the blame away from the terrorists, themselves, away from the guilty." Attaboy George! :lol:

Then Trump must scare the crap out of you.
 
And Comey was one of the other most respected men in public life until the 2016 Presidential campaign where liberals were for him, then against him, then for him....just depended on what he had to say.

Comey never had sign off without approvals above him UNTIL he became head of the FBI...a horrible position for a guy with a god complex. Should never have risen above Deputy Dir level or even Asst. Deputy Dir level position...not ever. So all of his so-called "respect" was developed at levels in the org that required he gain approvals from above his pay grade. Left to his own devices even for the short period of time he was at full Dir status (4 years), Comey was a screaming disaster.

Mueller was FBI Dir for 12 years. I hardly think Mueller belongs in any discussion with Comey.
 
Here is a little more perspective on Mueller's "qualifications" and history.

He has been a yes man for the deep state players for quite some time. https://digwithin.net/2018/04/08/muellers-history/

This whole deeeeeep staaaaate narrative just gets tiresome after awhile. I have a term that appears to have disappeared from some segments of the public lexicon since all this deeeeep staaaaate garbage started. It's PUBLIC SERVANT.
 
And Comey was one of the other most respected men in public life until the 2016 Presidential campaign where liberals were for him, then against him, then for him....just depended on what he had to say.

Comet was rightly criticized for injecting the email issue very late in the campaign and rightly praised for authorizing the investigation after the election. Nothing inconsistent except in small minds.
 
The Grand Buffoon is FAR FROM THE "WUNDERIND" we were told he was by the Fake News, etal….FAR FROM IT:






"...The Times profile begins by focusing on Mueller’s tenure at the U.S. Attorney’s Office, where he was criticized for mishandling high-profile cases and for his treatment of government witnesses and subordinates.

The first of these cases took place in 1979, when Mueller, as head of the U.S. attorney’s special prosecutors unit, took over the case against 33 members of the Hells Angels motorcycle club charged with drug trafficking, murder, and bombings. The first trial, which sought to imprison 18 of the accused members, was unsuccessful, as the five convictions reached in the case were overturned on appeal.

Mueller then took over the case and lead a team of four prosecutors in the second trial with 11 eleven defendants. However, as reported by the Times, “after four months, the jury said it was deadlocked, and the judge declared a mistrial. Mueller decided not to ask for a retrial.”


Mueller was also criticized for his time as head of the FBI. He led the investigation into the deadly anthrax attacks in the years after 9/11 for nearly seven years, ultimately leading in the prosecution of the wrong suspect, who later successfully sued the government for $5.8 million.

After agents successfully traced back the anthrax to an Army microbiologist who committed suicide once he was informed of the impending charges, Mueller “was reluctant to publicly address the missteps” in the case.


"I think he was personally embarrassed," a former aide told the Times. "I would assess him as someone that can't accept the fact that he screwed up."



Robert Mueller Is a Hothead Who Can't Own Up to His Mistakes, Former Aides Say


https://www.newsweek.com/robert-mueller-special-counsel-russia-aides-criticize-722670
 
And Comey was one of the other most respected men in public life until the 2016 Presidential campaign where liberals were for him, then against him, then for him....just depended on what he had to say.

So it would have been okay, in your opinion, for the special council to drop it's findings 3 days before the midterm elections?
 
He (they) won't bother to even read it...
Color me surprised if she dont. I already know she is just trying to troll me. She is asking a stupid question that she already knows the answer too. I'm sure she thinks she has some clever rebuttal.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 
So you're Ned Ryun, Opinion writer for The Hill? How are things at the highly conservative American Majority that you founded?

SOP-DP LEFT "Dodge the FACTS..Attack the Source" Allinsky bull****. It's still 1998 for the DP left, apparently.
 
SOP-DP LEFT "Dodge the FACTS..Attack the Source" Allinsky bull****. It's still 1998 for the DP left, apparently.

It's fun to watch you and other Twump sycophants tremble in fear of what's going to happen to Donnie when the hammer falls.
 
So you're Ned Ryun, Opinion writer for The Hill? How are things at the highly conservative American Majority that you founded?
Does he not meet your approval list?

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 
It's fun to watch you and other Twump sycophants tremble in fear of what's going to happen to Donnie when the hammer falls.
It's just as much fun for us, watching the mental contortions you all twist yourselves into trying to deflect away from the cold hard facts that interrupt your naratives.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 
It's just as much fun for us, watching the mental contortions you all twist yourselves into trying to deflect away from the cold hard facts that interrupt your naratives.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

And even more fun to watch you pretend something is happening that actually isn't.

Yay!
 
Here is a little more perspective on Mueller's "qualifications" and history.

He has been a yes man for the deep state players for quite some time. https://digwithin.net/2018/04/08/muellers-history/

I read it, then followed an implausible link. The article says:

As TIME magazine reported, the likely explanation for the bombing, supported by independent intelligence experts, was that U.S. operatives “targeted Flight 103 in order to kill the hostage-rescue team.” This would prevent disclosure of what McKee’s team had learned.

But the TIME article says no such thing - it in fact lays out a detailed case for IRANIANS targeting the flight. So the author lied. Oh well, so much for their credibility, relying on people not clicking on a link to advance a dishonest narrative.
 

That article is an opinion piece about people who have either since been fired, or who had some incidental contact with democrats, or who investigated a supposedly discredited dossier that had nothing to do with the investigation. There is no evidence of a tainted investigation in that article, but there are a lot of vague questions and loose suggestions of conflicts of interest that a conspiracy theorist could cling to in order to imply that evidence exists.

It bears mentioning that all of the names mentioned in that article as having conflicts of interest have qualifications that make them absolutely ideal to serve on an investigation into money laundering and organized crime. Research them yourself and ask yourself if you wouldn't pick all of them to investigate election tampering and collusion with a foreign power.
 
Does he not meet your approval list?

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

No, I don't pay attention to partisans. I assume if one of the liberals here posted some uber partisan liberal's opinion piece (which is what you posted - an opinion piece), you'd agree with the liberal's opinion. Of course, right?
 
He blew any chance of being viewed as impartial as soon as he assembled a team of highly partisan investigators and it only gets worse from there.

Its been clear from the start that his mission isnt about the russians tampering with the election. Its to get Trump.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

You pretending to not only know the name of all his investigators but also pretend to know anything about them? Laughable.
 
Correct, but so what if I didn’t.

If you didn't that plays to the point you were making about Mueller's respect before he became Special Counsel. Most people didn't know who he was, and they decided whether to like him or not along partisan lines.
 
No, I don't pay attention to partisans. I assume if one of the liberals here posted some uber partisan liberal's opinion piece (which is what you posted - an opinion piece), you'd agree with the liberal's opinion. Of course, right?



That article is an opinion piece about people who have either since been fired, or who had some incidental contact with democrats, or who investigated a supposedly discredited dossier that had nothing to do with the investigation. There is no evidence of a tainted investigation in that article, but there are a lot of vague questions and loose suggestions of conflicts of interest that a conspiracy theorist could cling to in order to imply that evidence exists.

It bears mentioning that all of the names mentioned in that article as having conflicts of interest have qualifications that make them absolutely ideal to serve on an investigation into money laundering and organized crime. Research them yourself and ask yourself if you wouldn't pick all of them to investigate election tampering and collusion with a foreign power.

The irony of you two complaining about a partisan source is delicious.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 
If you didn't that plays to the point you were making about Mueller's respect before he became Special Counsel. Most people didn't know who he was, and they decided whether to like him or not along partisan lines.

After Mueller’s appointment, his military and governmental experiences were reported at length in the mainstream press. “Most (serious) people” probably read up on his background and in doing so learned of his widely held respect.
 
The irony of you two complaining about a partisan source is delicious.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

Orly? Please show me all of the partisan opinion pieces that I've posted and used as proof of something. Post links to my posts doing that. I'll wait.
 
Back
Top Bottom