Breaking: First Charges Filed in Mueller Investigation

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: Cutepants

What is the best word for someone who gives 20% of the U.S.'s uranium to Russia?

Fictional.

Finally an actual investigation with charges?

LOL

We haven't seen that...ever? Clinton and Lewinsky was the last time we had real teeth in any type of investigation.

originally posted by: RazorV66

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Grambler

Plus Gowdy doesn't need much to get a hard on for Hillary again.

There is no man alive that would get a hard on for Hillary.
You couldn't consume that much booze and still stay conscious.
He wants her behind bars for her corruption that cost the lives of US citizens.

Funny how they all pretended that all the accusations were just to stop her from getting elected, yet there's still a pursuit for justice even though the election is long over. Yet another busted narrative. Some people want to see her indicted because she's a #ing criminal, it had nothing to do with the election.

originally posted by: Sillyolme

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: Cutepants

What is the best word for someone who gives 20% of the U.S.'s uranium to Russia?

Fictional.

Fictional only to those of you that live on Fantasy Island.
Keep puckering and Hillary will keep bending over for you.
Congress is investigating that little "fictional" story right now with the help of the FBI informer that Obama and his goons threatened to keep quiet.
Don't take your crash helmet off yet.

I want to say that I dislike Clinton, I am not against the Democratic party. She was shifty in her dealings, hiding stuff she did or did not do from others. A person who does not listen to the rules at all should not be president. I also do not agree with how the media is twisting everything to anti-trump. Trump messes up enough on his own, he does not need misinterpretations spread by the media. I look at the medias twisting of things as a direct assault on the highest office in this country, The office of the president. I would dislike this no matter who was in office, I am an American citizen and I respect the office of the president and the congressmen while they are in office. I did not like some of the things Obama did, but did not twist the facts and bash him while he was in office.

I actually think the government should enforce the laws on the books that prevent organizations and people from disrupting the routine of the government but only as applied to the congress and White House. I have no problem with legal measures being used to challenge government policy but stirring up the people is not good.

a reply to: theantediluvian

Just saying that it's not making a huge splash or else every outlet would be running with it.

With an investigation this big, you'd think this kind of thing would be huge news, so why aren't we seeing it everywhere?

... oh wait, now it is linked to Drudge, as of 11.

a reply to: Mike.Ockizard

No you're wrong. They are covering both stories. The sealed indictment and who may be named and laughing at the uranium one story that was debunked a long time ago. They usually run commentary on both in a linked discussion.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Mike.Ockizard

No you're wrong. They are covering both stories. The sealed indictment and who may be named and laughing at the uranium one story that was debunked a long time ago. They usually run commentary on both in a linked discussion.

people do not investigate debunked stories that waste tax payer dollars. Imagine the trouble they would get into if they were wadting money on something to already been proven false.

No you hope its fictional and they find nothing.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Blue_Jay33

It would be, but I think that's just as much wishful thinking as the idea that they will roll up to 1600 Penn Ave. and arrest Trump on Monday morning.

But it's a fun visualization none the less.

a reply to: amazing

That had nothing to do with Lewinsky and everything to do with lying to congress.
What do you think trumps chances would be if he's questioned under oath? On a scale of one to ten. Ten being he gets a cell in Leavenworth Prison.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: amazing

That had nothing to do with Lewinsky and everything to do with lying to congress.
What do you think trumps chances would be if he's questioned under oath? On a scale of one to ten. Ten being he gets a cell in Leavenworth Prison.

I just never believe these things anymore. I can give you a list that were all supposed to be homeruns like: Iran Contra, Whitewater, Benghazi, Email Servers, Birth Certificates...It just goes on and on and there is never a homerun, never an idictment, never a conviction, never a groundbreaking revelation etc.

originally posted by: Deetermined
According to insider Twitter accounts, indictments will come down on Paul Manafort, Tony Podesta and John Podesta in a last ditch effort for Mueller to try and save his own a$$.

pinky bet?

originally posted by: Grambler
I want to say something to those that think Mueller should recuse himself.

I have questions about Mueller to (though I don't see enough for a recusal).

But regardless of what you think of mueller, this is not an excuse to look at the evidence he provides.

If he shows clear evidence of crimes being committed by someone, it shouldn't matter what his bias is.

That evidence will them be hashed out by others in court.

Unless he brings someone in on a far lesser charge, like something Financial and threatens something big so they can "lie" and "get off" about someone else. Sort of a dirty trick, but its done. The Assitant Attorney General directed Comey be fired then when he was he brought in a guy who has connections with Comey. That simply stinks.

originally posted by: RazorV66
The fact of it is....Clinton and her goons corruption is the size of Mount Everest compared to Trump's sandbox sized corruption.
But the Leftist water carriers will never care about it, they just keep puckering and Hillary just keeps bending over.

I wish people's blind fanaticism to their own party wouldn't blind them to justice. It's not "ok" in either case. Just because someone else is "more corrupt" doesn't make it ok for your hero to be slightly less corrupt.

originally posted by: talisman

originally posted by: Grambler
I want to say something to those that think Mueller should recuse himself.

I have questions about Mueller to (though I don't see enough for a recusal).

But regardless of what you think of mueller, this is not an excuse to look at the evidence he provides.

If he shows clear evidence of crimes being committed by someone, it shouldn't matter what his bias is.

That evidence will them be hashed out by others in court.

Unless he brings someone in on a far lesser charge, like something Financial and threatens something big so they can "lie" and "get off" about someone else. Sort of a dirty trick, but its done. The Assitant Attorney General directed Comey be fired then when he was he brought in a guy who has connections with Comey. That simply stinks.

Of course it stinks.

But he has evidnece of a crime, we shouldnt ignore it.

The fact that he stinks is more troubling in the sense that he may NOT invetsigaate or bring charges to those connected to his friends.

So there shoould be an investigation into the dems and the FBI that doesnt include Mueller.

But that is not a reason to dismiss verifiable evidence of someones wrong doing if he provides it.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: theantediluvian

Just saying that it's not making a huge splash or else every outlet would be running with it.

With an investigation this big, you'd think this kind of thing would be huge news, so why aren't we seeing it everywhere?

As pointed out, this is Mueller attempting to save face. There were increasing calls within Congress for him to shut-down. They were just waiting for his HUGE expense report to be submitted for payment next week.

After thousands of people-hours and tens of millions of dollars, If his indictment is against Manafort or Flynn, he'll terminated. Everyone knew about those guys since the beginning. Equivalent of catching the school janitor taking home a mop.

a reply to: RickinVa

I believe my original post already did that but thanks for the boost.

a reply to: RickinVa

Oh I know. Manifort is the most likely but if people can throw Podesta and Clinton into the hypothesis I can raise the stakes to include junior and the son he wishes he had, Jared . No one is going to know before Monday.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: RickinVa

Oh I know. Manifort is the most likely but if people can throw Podesta and Clinton into the hypothesis I can raise the stakes to include junior and the son he wishes he had, Jared . No one is going to know before Monday.

I doubt we will really know here the investigation may head after monday either.

Again, says its manafort indicted.

People will take this as proof the Podestas and hillary are next, and others will take this as proof Trump is next.

Who the heck knows where this is going.

originally posted by: Grambler
I want to say something to those that think Mueller should recuse himself.

I have questions about Mueller to (though I don't see enough for a recusal).

But regardless of what you think of mueller, this is not an excuse to look at the evidence he provides.

If he shows clear evidence of crimes being committed by someone, it shouldn't matter what his bias is.

That evidence will them be hashed out by others in court.

It's an indictment. It doesn't take much to convince a grand jury.
Someone is going to be prosecuted.
I agree it's most likely Paul Manifort since he was already told he was going to be.
And sealed for the same reason they did a predawn raid of his home.
So he doesn't bolt. Obviously Mueller thinks he's a flight risk.he wants him under lock and key. Where Trump can't get to him.