Mueller Now Investigating Democratic Lobbyist Tony Podesta

Originally posted by Surtur
Rob, neither of the things you mentioned are illegal though. Being shady and being illegal aren't always the same thing.

So if you want to play this out with "is it illegal?!" it makes no sense.

IOW: If LEGALITY is what matters, neither did anything wrong.

Well then, I'm sure Mueller's thrown out the Junior/Kushner/Manafort meeting in Trump tower while Trump was there himself and you can stop shitting the bed over it finally 👆

Originally posted by Robtard
Well then, I'm sure Mueller's thrown out the Junior/Kushner/Manafort meeting in Trump tower while Trump was there himself and you can stop shitting the bed over it finally 👆

I don't think Mueller ever was interested because of illegality, I think he just thought it would be part of a much larger puzzle.

Nobody has explained why it'd be illegal to be told "hey, your opponent is colluding" and then meet to get the information. I don't even think Jr. wanted it because he thought it would land Hilary in jail, but because he thought it would hurt the campaign.

If it's okay to dig for dirt then hey...it's okay to dig for dirt.

I'm glad you have such insights into Mueller's brain. Me personally, I take the word of the legal experts and Judge Napolitano has said that the Junior/Kushner/Manafort meeting is not good from a legal standpoint. Not good at all.

But it's refreshing that you seem to have finally moved onto the next expected phase, the "who cares if team Trump colluded". Earlier than expected, I must say.

Originally posted by Robtard
I'm glad you have such insights into Mueller's brain. Me personally, I take the word of the legal experts and Judge Napolitano has said that the Junior/Kushner/Manafort meeting is not good from a legal standpoint. Not good at all.

But it's refreshing that you seem to have finally moved onto the next expected phase, the "who cares if team Trump colluded". Earlier than expected, I must say.

Other legal experts(like liberal Alan Dershowitz) have said nothing done was illegal.

So you take the words of legal experts that support your own narrative, would be a more correct thing to say.

I also never said "who cares if they colluded". What I said was if it's just about legalities...nothing wrong was done.

Originally posted by Surtur
Other legal experts(like liberal Alan Dershowitz) have said nothing done was illegal.

So you take the words of legal experts that support your own narrative, would be a more correct thing to say.

I also never said "who cares if they colluded". What I said was if it's just about legalities...nothing wrong was done.

Who is that?

Oh the irony and you won't even see it.

Okay, many I jumped the gun. It's coming though.

Originally posted by Robtard
Who is that?

Oh the irony and you won't even see it.

Okay, many I jumped the gun. It's coming though.

He is a lawyer and scholar of constitutional law. Also a liberal. Here is what he says about Trump Jr.

YouTube video

IOW, if they encouraged the Russians to go get this information it would be different. Merely accepting something the Russians got on their own is not, which makes sense doesn't it?

So you'll take the words of legal experts, even liberals, only if they support your narrative?

Rob, it's not about taking his word, his reasoning does make sense to me, I'm not suggesting he is automatically correct.

So why not post the legal reasons the experts you saw said this was illegal? I would avoid anyone who said this was treason, but feel free to use them too.

I am waiting to be told what law was broken. Mueller isn't finished, I am asking what law was broken based on what we know.

I must launch my own investigation into who, oh who, 2142 could be.

Originally posted by BackFire
I must launch my own investigation into who, oh who, 2142 could be.

After you finish investigating who Steve Zodiac is, no doubt.

I have concluded both of my investigations.

My conclusion is that I don't care.

Originally posted by BackFire
I have concluded both of my investigations.

My conclusion is that I don't care.

^^Reasonable.

and what if it wasn't reasonable? what would you do about it?

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
and what if it wasn't reasonable? what would you do about it?

Call it out.

yes i know

"RULEZ 4 ME AND NOT FOR THEEEEE! *whimper*

over and over, but then what?

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
yes i know

over and over, but then what?

The fact this person had socks banned but one who trolled often and had them banned and then came back and was allowed to post would indeed be an example of "rules for thee but not for me", you are correct.

uh huh but then what? what if they said "yes. rules for you and not for me. you are correct."
you gonna report them to the BBB? what would be your course of action besides uninterrupted whining?

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
uh huh but then what? what if they said "yes. rules for you and not for me.
you are correct." you gonna report them to the BBB? what would be your course of action besides uninterrupted whining?

There is no "then what". After that the rules are either applied or they are not.

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
uh huh but then what? what if they said "yes. rules for you and not for me. you are correct."
you gonna report them to the BBB? what would be your course of action besides uninterrupted whining?

Well if this were the case, it would at least be nice to know the bias beforehand.

the investigation will remain classified or trump will just have everything involving himself redacted. if not we will have access to irrefutable proof that trump is The 'Useful Idiot'