• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Special Counsel Mueller has submitted his report to Attorney General Barr

Page 26 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
compuwiz1 said:
LOL...
Bernie Sanders in February 2018: "The findings of Robert Mueller's investigation must be taken seriously at every level of government."


March 2019.
Reporter: "Will you accept the results of "No Collusion" from the Mueller Report?
Bernie Sanders: "NO!
Click to expand...

Oh did you see the Mueller report already? Please link that up!
 
soulcougher73 said:
Why would anyone accept blindy the words that there is no collusion from the most lying'ist man ever or people he appointed?

I have a report here that concludes that compuwiz1 is one of the dumbest people alive. Who's with me? Come one people..blindly believe my conclusion of the report!! Or...you can just make up your own mind by his posting history.
Click to expand...

I haven't seen the report that you speak of but since I agree with what you are saying I agree that that's what the report said. I also don't think you should show anyone the report because it has personal information about compuwiz1.

I await compuwiz's apology along with everyone else who disagreed that he is a moron, now that its been proven that he is indeed a moron.

I'm looking forward to drinking the tears of righties.
 
compuwiz1 said:
LOL...
Bernie Sanders in February 2018: "The findings of Robert Mueller's investigation must be taken seriously at every level of government."


March 2019.
Reporter: "Will you accept the results of "No Collusion" from the Mueller Report?
Bernie Sanders: "NO!
Click to expand...

Bernie hasn't seen the results of the Mueller report, neither have you, and neither have any of us.

swing and a miss!
 
fskimospy said:
So Strzok was simultaneously an enthusiastic and biased member of the conspiracy against Trump AND reluctant to join the investigation due to a lack of confidence there was wrongdoing to uncover.

Wait what.

Lol. Did you stop and take a second to think this through? Again, this is tinfoil hat nonsense.
Click to expand...

Strzok was conflicted.

1. He hated Trump and wanted to bring him down.
2. He knew that what he was doing was likely unjustified and had doubts about proceeding.

Is that so hard to understand? The quotes are his own words, this is hardly an implausible conspiracy theory.

We can argue round and round on this stuff but it's obviously pointless, you and your fellow Trump collusion true believers will never concede no matter how stark the reality of the situation is: no indictments and no evidence of collusion. It's over, man.
 
dbr1 said:
Strzok was conflicted.

1. He hated Trump and wanted to bring him down.
2. He knew that what he was doing was likely unjustified and had doubts about proceeding.

Is that so hard to understand? The quotes are his own words, this is hardly an implausible conspiracy theory.

We can argue round and round on this stuff but it's obviously pointless, you and your fellow Trump collusion true believers will never concede no matter how stark the reality of the situation is: no indictments and no evidence of collusion. It's over, man.
Click to expand...

There’s no reason to argue round and round, you’re simply engaging in tinfoil hat conspiracy theories. I understand how you view this based on emotion instead of logic but you can’t hardly expect the rest of us to be as insane as you are.

I encourage you to take a minute and think of you are reasoning logically or emotionally. If you do I think you’ll end up with me. I hope you’re able to do that.
 
fskimospy said:
There’s no reason to argue round and round, you’re simply engaging in tinfoil hat conspiracy theories. I understand how you view this based on emotion instead of logic but you can’t hardly expect the rest of us to be as insane as you are.

I encourage you to take a minute and think of you are reasoning logically or emotionally. If you do I think you’ll end up with me. I hope you’re able to do that.
Click to expand...

He's just here to troll out Trumpian diversions. It's a rehash of the discredited & scurrilous Nunes memo-

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nunes_memo
 
dbr1 said:
Strzok was conflicted.

1. He hated Trump and wanted to bring him down.
2. He knew that what he was doing was likely unjustified and had doubts about proceeding.

Is that so hard to understand? The quotes are his own words, this is hardly an implausible conspiracy theory.

We can argue round and round on this stuff but it's obviously pointless, you and your fellow Trump collusion true believers will never concede no matter how stark the reality of the situation is: no indictments and no evidence of collusion. It's over, man.
Click to expand...

Strzok was cleared of ever having acted inappropriately, that's over man. Holding a guy's opinion against him, haha yeah. I like how you Trumpets think that still works after getting behind a pig like Trump, where you already explained away why you don't care about anything except job performance. Trump recommends grabbing them by the pussy, gives Putin the Handjob in Helsinki, yet he is still fit for office somehow. Is that hard to understand?

Here's the reality: there was no exoneration for obstruction and still what, 16, 17 investigations into Trump? Seems appropriate to wait before conceding, so your forecast is bullshit regarding your 'true believers' and an ending to this.

They really need to release the report. I'm curious as hell, and you guys can't cling to Barr's hard-to-believe summary or some Strzok fixation forever.
 
dbr1 said:
Strzok was conflicted.

1. He hated Trump and wanted to bring him down.
2. He knew that what he was doing was likely unjustified and had doubts about proceeding.

Is that so hard to understand? The quotes are his own words, this is hardly an implausible conspiracy theory.

We can argue round and round on this stuff but it's obviously pointless, you and your fellow Trump collusion true believers will never concede no matter how stark the reality of the situation is: no indictments and no evidence of collusion. It's over, man.
Click to expand...
Hannity...is that you?
 
compuwiz1 said:
LOL...
Bernie Sanders in February 2018: "The findings of Robert Mueller's investigation must be taken seriously at every level of government."


March 2019.
Reporter: "Will you accept the results of "No Collusion" from the Mueller Report?
Bernie Sanders: "NO!
Click to expand...

Nope, not able to link the report yet computer wiz?

How about just post up the executive summary and table of contents?

In fact, why do we even need Barr's memo? Why can't they let Mueller speak for himself?

If Trump is not afraid of the truth then put it out there.
 
fskimospy said:
There’s no reason to argue round and round, you’re simply engaging in tinfoil hat conspiracy theories. I understand how you view this based on emotion instead of logic but you can’t hardly expect the rest of us to be as insane as you are.

I encourage you to take a minute and think of you are reasoning logically or emotionally. If you do I think you’ll end up with me. I hope you’re able to do that.
Click to expand...
Stzork was a cop with an agenda, he ended up being (properly) fired for it. The man despised Trump, and promised his mistress that Trump would never be elected. This is the same guy and mistress that discussed going easy on Hillary when he was investigating her.
 
Greenman said:
Stzork was a cop with an agenda, he ended up being (properly) fired for it. The man despised Trump, and promised his mistress that Trump would never be elected. This is the same guy and mistress that discussed going easy on Hillary when he was investigating her.
Click to expand...

This is false on many levels.

1) there is absolutely nothing wrong with despising someone as an FBI agent. As I have said many times, imagine how much everyone would laugh at a mob boss if he complained that the agents investigating him didn’t like him so the investigation wasn’t fair. Seriously, wouldn’t we all be cracking up at the hilarious stupidity of such an argument? Why is it that conservatives think this is a good one?

2) there is not one single, solitary shred of evidence that Strzok engaged in ANY professional misconduct as it related to Trump. ZERO. This was confirmed by the DOJ. If you can’t show that then every other complaint is entirely irrelevant. Agree?

3) Strzok did exactly the opposite of what you claim about Clinton. He pushed for them to go after her harder, not softer. He even co-wrote Comey’s letter reopening the Clinton email investigation.

Every conversation about Peter Strzok should begin and end with ‘if he was so bad what about the investigation did he do wrong?’ Nobody wants to answer this because that means admitting the answer is ‘nothing’. Conservative media strikes again.
 
fskimospy said:
This is false on many levels.

1) there is absolutely nothing wrong with despising someone as an FBI agent. As I have said many times, imagine how much everyone would laugh at a mob boss if he complained that the agents investigating him didn’t like him so the investigation wasn’t fair. Seriously, wouldn’t we all be cracking up at the hilarious stupidity of such an argument? Why is it that conservatives think this is a good one?

2) there is not one single, solitary shred of evidence that Strzok engaged in ANY professional misconduct as it related to Trump. ZERO. This was confirmed by the DOJ. If you can’t show that then every other complaint is entirely irrelevant. Agree?

3) Strzok did exactly the opposite of what you claim about Clinton. He pushed for them to go after her harder, not softer. He even co-wrote Comey’s letter reopening the Clinton email investigation.

Every conversation about Peter Strzok should begin and end with ‘if he was so bad what about the investigation did he do wrong?’ Nobody wants to answer this because that means admitting the answer is ‘nothing’. Conservative media strikes again.
Click to expand...
1)Yes there is something wrong with despising someone as an FBI agent when you tell your girlfriend you're going to stop him.
2)His unprofessional behavior was telling his mistress that he would stop Trump.
3)There is a text message from his mistress asking him to take it easy on Hillary, he agreed.

I don't know why you want to paint this guy as a model agent. He wasn't. He was extremely biased and not bright enough to hide it. He hated Trump and wanted to bring him down, he wanted Hillary to win the election by a "hundred million votes" his words. He shared all of this with his lover that also worked for the FBI in text messages on his official phone.
Stzork was fired over this.
You can keep trying to spin this any direction you want, but it isn't going to change the words he said, it isn't going to make him into a loyal husband, and it can't cover up the fact that he was driven by hate. Not political leaning, not a difference of opinion, hate. He's history, and rightly so.
 
Greenman said:
1)Yes there is something wrong with despising someone as an FBI agent when you tell your girlfriend you're going to stop him.
Click to expand...

False. There's nothing wrong with that. I suspect FBI agents tell their girlfriends they are going to stop mob bosses all the time. Again, wouldn't you be literally laughing at any mob boss who made the argument that an FBI agent said mean things about him so he can't be trusted?

Like, actual laughs.

2)His unprofessional behavior was telling his mistress that he would stop Trump.
Click to expand...

It appears you are implicitly agreeing that you cannot point to a single, solitary act of professional misconduct that Strzok engaged in as it relates to the Trump investigation. Not one.

That's case closed then.

3)There is a text message from his mistress asking him to take it easy on Hillary, he agreed.
Click to expand...

That text was pretty obviously stating that they feared reprisals from Clinton so they should be careful. Seems smart, no?

I don't know why you want to paint this guy as a model agent. He wasn't. He was extremely biased and not bright enough to hide it. He hated Trump and wanted to bring him down, he wanted Hillary to win the election by a "hundred million votes" his words. He shared all of this with his lover that also worked for the FBI in text messages on his official phone.
Stzork was fired over this.
You can keep trying to spin this any direction you want, but it isn't going to change the words he said, it isn't going to make him into a loyal husband, and it can't cover up the fact that he was driven by hate. Not political leaning, not a difference of opinion, hate. He's history, and rightly so.
Click to expand...

I'm not painting him as anything. You have made a bunch of claims about Strzok and you literally can't find a single thing related to the investigation that he did wrong. Not one! If you can't find that, you should admit as much. If you can, show it. No innuendos about him being mean, show me an action related to the investigation of Trump or Clinton that was improper. This will be a challenge as the DOJ inspector general already researched that thoroughly and said no such thing happened.

This is tinfoil hat conspiracy theory insanity.
 
Greenman said:
1)Yes there is something wrong with despising someone as an FBI agent when you tell your girlfriend you're going to stop him.
2)His unprofessional behavior was telling his mistress that he would stop Trump.
3)There is a text message from his mistress asking him to take it easy on Hillary, he agreed.

I don't know why you want to paint this guy as a model agent. He wasn't. He was extremely biased and not bright enough to hide it. He hated Trump and wanted to bring him down, he wanted Hillary to win the election by a "hundred million votes" his words. He shared all of this with his lover that also worked for the FBI in text messages on his official phone.
Stzork was fired over this.
You can keep trying to spin this any direction you want, but it isn't going to change the words he said, it isn't going to make him into a loyal husband, and it can't cover up the fact that he was driven by hate. Not political leaning, not a difference of opinion, hate. He's history, and rightly so.
Click to expand...

So what? It's all just duh-versionary conspiracy theory trolling away from the Mueller report & Barr's handling of it.
 
IronWing said:
Barr is the Republican cleaner.
Click to expand...

I mean if there is some damning information in that report these moves to keep it secret are stupid with more stupid on top. The thing is, the report is going to leak at some point, its the natural direction of information, it wants to be free.. And the longer time these facts are denied to people the bigger the backlash towards those conspiring to bury it will be(looking at you turtleneck). All this is logic101 and it leaves one to conclude that Barr is not a high IQ individual. He cant be.

On the OTHER hand

If there is no damning information in the report .. well then its a good catalyst towards a civil clash, cause the divide is just going to widen until release.
If its not damning, release it and let the healing begin.
 
"Imagine if the Starr Report had been provided only to President Clinton's Attorney General, Janet Reno, who then read it privately and published a 4-page letter based on her private reading stating her conclusion that President Clinton committed no crimes,"
- University of Southern California law professor Orin Kerr,
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top