ChiGoose

Rent free, buddy. Keep it up, you sad, pathetic loser.

Interesting that you'd rather ignore the text of the report and use someone else's politically motivated take on it. You could just use the actual report findings but they don't match the facts you wish were true, so you just ignore them in favor of spin. You do remember that Barr so mischaracterized the Mueller report that Mueller wrote to him to complain the day after Barr released his memo? Why ignore the report in favor of spin?

Agreed. Neither the Steele Dossier nor the contents of Hunter's laptop should be taken as true.

No, no, no. You don't understand. It was a seat on a private plane that would "otherwise have been empty"! Haven't we all been offered free airplane seats because they weren't already sold to a passenger?

I'm sure that if (((Soros))) was offering six figures in trips and gifts to Ketanji Brown Jackson, they'd all agree that it would be bad for people to report on it or criticize it.

So you'd be cool if lefties gave hundreds of thousands in gifts to the liberal justices?

Number one sign you posted something factual

I'm sorry, did you just respond to my comment that Mueller didn't look at collusion with a report saying that the Senate did? Because last time I checked, Mueller wasn't in the Senate...

I actually read the entire thing. But in the introduction, he specifically states that he's not even evaluating collusion. So any claim that he stated there was no collusion is a misrepresentation of the report at best, or a lie at worst. "In evaluating whether evidence about collective action of multiple individuals constituted a crime, we applied the framework of conspiracy law, not the concept of “collusion.” In so doing, the Office recognized that the word “collud[e]” was used in communications with the Acting Attorney General confirming certain aspects of the investigation’s scope and that the term has frequently been invoked in public reporting about the investigation. But collusion is not a specific offense or theory of liability found in the United States Code, nor is it a term of art in federal criminal law. For those reasons, the Office’s focus in analyzing questions of joint criminal liability was on conspiracy as defined in federal law." Mueller Report, p.2 Not sure how you can read "We are not looking at collusion" and come up with "We found no collusion" but there ya go.

And yet it eludes you. Durham said that the Papadopoulos information was the "sole basis" for opening Crossfire Hurricane. You still claim it was the Steele Dossier. So I guess you think Durham is lying?

You're the one claiming Durham is lying.

...you do realize that the point of an investigation is to determine if something happened, right? Like, if it was already proven, you wouldn't need an investigation. ...what do you think an investigation actually is...?

Then you should read the Durham Report. "3. The opening of Crossfire Hurricane The FBI opened Crossfire Hurricane as a full counterintelligence investigation "to determine whether individual(s) associated with the Trump campaign [were] witting of and/or coordinating activities with the Government of Russia. " 203 The starting point for the Office's inquiry was to examine what information was known or available to the FBI about any such ties as ofJuly 31, 2016, prior to opening Crossfire Hurricane. That question then divided itself into two related questions: (i) what was the information that predicated the opening ofthe investigation and (ii) did that information support such an investigation being opened not as an "assessment" or "preliminary" investigation, but from the start as a "full" investigation. In exploring these questions, we determined the following: a. The information used to predicate Crossfire Hurricane In March 2016, the Trump campaign identified George Papadopoulos as a foreign policy advisor. 204 Papadopoulos had previously worked as an energy consultant, with a particular focus on projects in the Eastern Mediterranean. 205 At the time of his appointment, Papadopoulos was employed in the United Kingdom at the London Center of lntemational Law Practice. 206 Among Papadopoulos's acquaintances in London was a diplomat from another country ("Foreign Government-I Diplomat-I"). Foreign Government-I Diplomat-I was familiar with an Australian diplomat ("Australian Diplomat-l").207 On May 6, 2016, by prearrangement, Foreign Government-I Diplomat-I introduced Papadopoulos to Australian Diplomat-I. 208 On May I0, 2016, Papadopoulos and Australian Diplomat- I met again, and this time they were joined by Australian High Commissioner Alexander Downer. 209 Both meetings were over drinks in public settings. 210 The Australian diplomats were interested in meeting with Papadopoulos because of his role in the Trump campaign, and much of the conversation centered on the upcoming U.S. election. 211 Over two months later, on July 26, 2016, Australia provided the U.S. Embassy in London certain information its diplomats had memorialized at or around the time ofthe meetings with Papadopoulos. The next day, the State Department passed this information on to the FBI's Legal Attache assigned to the Embassy in London ("UK Legatl ")_212 "Paragraph Five" was the name given to the raw information provided by the Australian government and included in a May 16, 2016 cable that documented the diplomats' encounters with Papadopoulos. 213 Pages 51-52 As an initial matter, there is no question that the FBI had an affirmative obligation to closely examine the Paragraph Five information. The Paragraph Five information, however, was the sole basis cited by the FBI for opening a full investigation into individuals associated with the ongoing Trump campaign. 226 Page 54

Some people actually believe that Mueller stated that Trump and his campaign didn't collude. That's because they couldn't even get past the introduction to the report and instead relied on liars and bad faith actors to tell them what to believe.

People often believe dumb things. Some people believe that Trump won in 2020. Some people believe that the Russia investigation started because of the Steele Dossier, too. Doesn’t make them right.

Looks like Leonard Leo likes to partner his justices with billionaire buddies.

Not ironic. Exactly my point. Thank you.

He’s getting paid because his last name is Biden. It’s gross, but that doesn’t make it a crime. None of the “evidence” so far establishes that Joe Biden was involved. The quality of the accusations at this point is about as convincing as the Trump pee tape.

Actually, the vast majority of people on the left don’t give a rats ass about Hunter Biden. If he’s dirty, get him. Just remember that it was a Trump prosecutor who drove this case and this is all he found.

It’ll get delayed by motion practice. Question is just how much.

“Implicated in” means nothing for sentencing and plea deals. If he wasn’t charged with it, it’s irrelevant. If you want to argue for stricter gun control, I’m 100% with you here.

Eh, only having three years as a judge before joining SCOTUS is a pretty light resume but at least Comey Barrett was a law professor for about a decade before then.

Cannon made up legal policies that didn't exist and completely warped the rule of law to benefit a party. It isn't like "Oh I didn't like Scalia because I disagree with him," it's a judge making up rulings out of whole cloth that contradict established law.

Many of the judges appointed where appointed solely because they were extremists and young (and therefore would be on the bench for decades). Several were very unqualified for the job entirely. That being said, just because Trump appointed a judge doesn't mean that the judge is a "Trump judge" who will throw away the law in favor of anything that helps Trump. Most are just very, very conservative. Cannon, however, has shown herself to be a "Trump judge" who just makes up the law to be whatever helps Trump. This is why she was benchslapped by the 11th circuit for being terrible at her job. Maybe the experience has chastened her. Maybe not. We'll see.

Nope. The only removal process is impeachment. A party to a case can file a motion requesting the judge recuse themselves but it's not a sure thing the judge will do so. As far as I can tell, Jack Smith has not filed such a motion for Judge Cannon. That's probably the correct call. Despite her egregious behavior and lack of understanding how the law works in the previous Trump case she handled, it was technically a separate proceeding. Smith should be open to filing a motion should she behave similarly in this case, but should only do so when she has demonstrated clear bias in the case.