It wasn't a hoax

I don't need to do the research. I already know the answers. YOU are the one making FAKE CLAIMS you can't support.
So now you're running from your own claims?
Guess what that tells us about YOUR claims

1. YOU have no clue why there were no impeachments for obstruction
2. YOU have no clue why Mueller didn't make criminal recommendations to the AG
3. YOU have no clue why Ken Starr could make criminal recommendations to the AG but Muller can't
4. YOU have no clue who obstructed Mueller
5. YOU have no clue why this obstruction stopped Mueller from getting the evidence he needs

So the next time you start posting your normal fake BS about Mueller, either have the answers or look like you look right now.
Embarrassed and clueless.

Go ahead, tell us all the answers to the questions. GUARANTEED you don't have the ability, know how, or education.

 

Follow the bread crumbs.

The indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would unconstitutionally undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions.
https://www.justice.gov/olc/opinion/sitting-president’s-amenability-indictment-and-criminal-prosecution

https://www.lawfareblog.com/dont-expect-starr-report-mueller

When was the OLC opinion on criminal indictments of a sitting prez issued?

Figure the rest out for yourself.

 

Making criminal recommendations to the AG (Just like Ken Starr did) is not indicting a president.
Next

 

Keep trying. You're still cold.

Rather than waste your time with this futile line of pursuit why not try disproving Mueller's findings? (I know why)

 

So now we have verified you don't know the difference between an indictment and criminal recommendations. Which is why you keep running from the questions about Ken Starr.
An indictment requires gathering a jury, presenting evidence, and getting a ruling on criminal charges to make formal charges against a defendant.

To impeach a president you have to have a charge to impeach on. If you don't have a criminal claim, how can you get a conviction without a crime?
Special counsels investigate criminal claims against president, find evidence, and present that to the AG. The AG's job is to provide that information to committee.
The committee then decides to impeach on the evidence and crimes provided by the AG.

This is what Ken Starr did and what Mueller could do. So instead of posting copy and pasted leftist babble, either get educated or continue to look clueless.
Your choice

Oh NO NO NO NO NO
We are not moving in until you either answer the questions or confess you have no clue. They are your claims so you can either back them up or you can run.

1. YOU have no clue why there were no impeachments for obstruction
2. YOU have no clue why Mueller didn't make criminal recommendations to the AG
3. YOU have no clue why Ken Starr could make criminal recommendations to the AG but Muller can't
4. YOU have no clue who obstructed Mueller
5. YOU have no clue why this obstruction stopped Mueller from getting the evidence he needs

So the next time you start posting your normal fake BS about Mueller, either have the answers or look like you look right now.
Embarrassed and clueless.

Go ahead, tell us all the answers to the questions. GUARANTEED you don't have the ability, know how, or education.

 

Lots of open questions, not the least of which is why you haven't bothered to address them. Neither From, nor Brezinski ever proved, and Mueller never convicted anyone from Russia that helped. We have open indictments today that are now addressing these obvious failures that you're still clinging to. But, you don't seem to worry about the facts you assert not being accurate except to say things like "proven" in the absence of any actual proof to your narrative. You seem to invest in others time to research stuff for you. Not going to do it today, and not for you this time. It's time for you to actually craft an argument, cite the facts of your argument and not insert yourself into a conversation between others and assert what is clearly a lie and then suggest that it offers proof. Sorry, no left wing media standards are acceptable here. Do your own work or offer an RFI to which you're willing to pay folks for their research efforts.

 

I believe I already told you I was still working when the dossier first became known in intelligence and law enforcement circles in 2016. Without the dossier there would have been no Mueller.

 

Sophomoric cheap shots are not an argument. My indication of that fact is not an ad homimen, it is criticism.

Language like that does not belong in a serious debate.

As such, I cannot take you seriously.

As long as you are willing to stoop to such language, you make yourself the issue, and the only proper response is......

Off to the ignore function you go.

Cya

 

I asked you to study what Obstruction Of Justice means, not 'obstruction of the report'.

Please learn the difference before you once again stick your foot in your mouth, you are embarrassing yourself.

 

No, because Mueller was appointed by Rosenstein, a Trump appointee, to take over Crossfire Hurricane, which IG Horowitz, in the execute summary of the FISA application report, stated that CH investigation "had a factual basis and was initiated for an authorized purpose" https://www.oversight.gov/sites/default/files/oig-reports/o20012.pdf

That is all that matters.

 

Rosenstein was a career official who served several presidents. Without the dossier, there would have been no impetus to find those "factual bases" which are now in question anyway.

 

You have a lot to learn about proper debate techniques. And I didn't threaten you, I merely suggested that you not respond to my posts if you cannot adhere to better debate technique, which is a reasonable request,

Your kill-the-source tactic is a pseudo debate trick, a non argument.

Your position has no merit, whatsoever. The subject at hand was the article by Frum, and you have provide zero content to counter the argument made.

Your comment doesn't rise above vacuous declaration and is thereby incompetent.

I've complied an inventory of non arguments for your edification which comprise what I call the 'incompetent rebuttal'.

Incompetent rebuttals are arguments where the salient premise is based on: [highlighted pertains to your comment]
non arguments, a non argument isn't really debatable or it's not worthy of debate owing to any of the following types, they come in many different flavors, especially those which contain vacuous declarations and/or allegations (which cannot be substantiated, i.e., 'making stuff up'), rebuttals rife with weasel words ( improper use of generalities such as 'some people are saying' 'everyone knows' 'well-established fact'.) ad hominems, loaded terms & phrases,, off topic/irrelevant deflections, sentiments (words that reveal emotional attitude devoid of fact, logic and reason) off point arguments/deflections (off point is a sibling to off topic, where off topic is attempting to highjack the thread. It's done a lot in internet forums, and if the person to whom you directed the topic change accepts it, then you're off into a new direction, but, as such, of course, doesn't refute the original premise offered), egregious strawman arguments, egregious cynicism, off-the-charts ill-logic, 'kill the messenger" tactics, i.e., attacking the person presenting the argument rather than the argument, itself ( the only time kill the messenger is valid is for a well-established discredited source, such as Alex Jones, David Duke, etc, ), childish remarks, trivialising your opponent's argument -- cheap shot, childish or sophomoric comments/logic arising from ignorance, kill-the-source arguments (for example, NYTimes is a 'radical leftist rag' , it's also variant on the 'kill the messenger' tactic. The only time such an argument might have merit if the source has an extremely low rating in mediabiasfactcheck.org, such as 'Gatewaypundit' has.) and then there is the classic thought-terminating cliché; these are cult-tropes, born out of groups who have a demagogue leader who is the master of implanting them in his flock. See, the demagogue doesn't like dissent, so when anyone challenges someone in his flock, he, being a master mind manipulator, will have planted a number of thought-terminating clichés into the minds of his subjects ( via repetition) so they will toss it up to the opponent in an attempt to kill the conversation ( wrongfully thinking it improves their argument ) so TTCs are simple terms catch phrases or words whose sole purpose is, to kill the conversation, such as 'TDS' "NeverTrumper" "Leftist Loony" (noting that the terms are not necessarily devised by the demagogue himself, they could be created by other believers, or have already been around and adopted by and they catch on with the group ) etc., pithy aphorisms assumed to be always true ( aphorisms exist because empirical observations tend to be true, but cannot be used as the salient premise to refute an argument as they are not, nor cannot be, absolute axioms), last, but not least, and a significant debate sin, is posturing; posturing type comments, come in two basic categories, one is where you flaunt, i.e, for example, your education, your age, military service, etc., but of course if the argument can be improved by your qualifications of expertise in a field, that is okay, what I mean is something like 'I served while you were dodging the draft" whereupon your service doesn't improve your argument about whether dodging the draft was moral, or not, or flaunting your education, age or authority of some kind, unless it's pertinent to the argument, noting that relying solely on 'authority' is considered a logical fallacy ( but can be appropriate if pertinent and used to supplement other more corroborative items used to buttress the argument ) and the other type of posturing are those comments which are motivated by puffing oneself up, and this is done by shaming, belittling, mocking, patronizing, 'mansplaining', flaming, where one talks down to ones opponent in order to puff oneself up under the misguided notion that doing so improves one's argument, which, of course, it most certainly does not.

Note that I do not consider logical fallacies as 'incompetent', only when the salient premise of the argument relies on them. Same goes for everything mentioned in the inventory, it's all about what is the salient premise. If it is wrong, it's debatable, that doesn't make it incompetent, or if the argument is week, a few debate sins, but overall, an argument of some caliber worthy of a response, that is not 'incompetent'. Incompetent doesn't mean right or wrong, it means the debate technique is so substandard it doesn't merit a proper counter argument (because of the over presentation of non arguments in the reply) --- not by me, anyway. I cannot speak for others.

The above is my treatise on the 'non argument'. But, here is some more perspective on it:

https://www.futurelearn.com/info/courses/logical-and-critical-thinking/0/steps/9141

 

Mueller was appointed because Comey was fired. The scope of Mueller's investigation didn't have much to do with the allegations in the dossier. You are conflating his investigation with the basis for the FISA warrants. You should know better.

 

See post #234. I admit to being disappointed to see you fall for the ruse.

 

Passed through MSNBC with no way of knowing what was omitted or added. In addition, they selected an article which favored their position while ignoring all others which opposed their position. It is called selective journalism.

 

You question is a dodge.

You haven't provided a counter argument.

 

If CH was initiated with proper purpose and is therefore legit, which is per the IG report, it doesn't matter.

Capiche?

Your question doesn't refute that fact, and that fact is the subject of the debate.

 

Off topic.

 

Incompetent rebuttal, non argument. KTM (kill-the-messenger or source) is not a merit worthy counter argument. "Propaganda" is not an argument as used here, it is a sentiment, and, as such, a non argument.

Please provide a well reasoned, substantiated, counter argument

 

'deep state' is thought-terminating cliché and is a non argument
Memes are not arguments.

Please provide well -reasoned counter argument without sentiment, emotion, but with sound logic and sourcing your claims, if possible.

 

Incompetent rebuttal: vacuous claim, unsubstantiated.

Please provide a well reasoned, substantiated, counter argument

 

If nothing else this thread is proof positive Trump's and right wing media's attempts to muddy the waters have been enormously effective. This..........To a large extent, the dossier has been a side show to the main event — clear evidence of the Russian government’s efforts to intervene in the 2016 election on the side of Donald Trump. A bipartisan report by the Senate Intelligence Committee in 2020 confirmed the initial intelligence community finding.

Moreover, the FBI opened its investigation into possible collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian government not because of the dossier, but because of a tip from an Australian diplomat that a Trump campaign adviser, George Papadopoulos, had disclosed that Russia had obtained damaging information on Hillary Clinton. “This information provided the FBI with an articulable factual basis that, if true, reasonably indicated activity constituting either a federal crime or a threat to national security, or both, may have occurred or may be occurring,” concluded a 2019 Justice Department inspector general report.

.........is unequivocally true. Yet it hides in plain sight (from The Following) by purposeful, endless obfuscation. It's why Durham was appointed, why Billy the Bagman mischaracterized Mueller's report, and why the feckless right wing media propaganda machine continues to spew its nonsense.

 

I'm going with Horowitz ( instead of you), who, though criticized the FBI on it's sloppliness on FISA apps in general, stated that the investigation was properly predicated, had a factual basis and was initiated for proper purpose

 

Like the Russia hoax?

The lefties roll out the same dog whistles and you come running.

 

The facts are, and forever will be, unpersuasive for The Following.