Mar 25, 2019

You’re here parading a report from the very people you claimed were crooked & couldn’t be trusted lol. You can’t have it both ways.

 

Mar 25, 2019

Why are you avoiding his point where we all remember you saying the Atlantic said a Trump indictment was in the cards? You were all over that boat on a high wave. Just take your L here Enigma. Come on man. Admit this 2 year investigation was a failure trying to indict Trump somehow.

I told you where my friend lives in CA. If you admit you took a L, I’ll buy you a few beers or if you smoke, some backwoods when I go to visit.

 

Mar 25, 2019

Um, I'm parading the fact that I correctly predicted the result of the Mueller probe. This is exactly what I've been saying would happen for some time now, that Mueller would eventually have to admit he found buttfuck nothing on Trump.

For the record, I'm not convinced Mueller himself is fundamentally to blame for Russiagate, but either way it doesn't matter. If he had found anything to link Trump's 2016 campaign with Russia, no matter how remote, he would have come out with it, at least to try to save face. And if Mueller was corrupt (I don't know or assume that he is), the same basic logic still stands. I generally don't trust political witch hunters and crooked partisans, but I do trust them to do whatever it takes to win. In any case, if the report says there was no collusion found, why should I disbelieve it? Your logic is as enigmatic as ever.

 

Mar 25, 2019

For anyone who wants a coherent breakdown/overview of the Mueller probe, I always refer blue pilled normies to this guy. Don't respond unless you can refute it point by point. @Enigma would be wise to watch, if he ever feels like coming back from a very long lunch.

 

Mar 25, 2019

I don’t even know what Atlantic article he’s talking about quite frankly. You & him spent the better part of 2 years claiming the FBI/DOJ was trying to push trump out of office. Now, both of you guys are celebrating the outcome of a report from the very people you claimed were “out to get trump.” Spacemonkey even went as far as suggesting the Russians didn’t hack the DNC, it was some democratic operative lol. Idk how I’m the one that’s “taking the L” here.

 

Mar 25, 2019

Repeating the same argument and ignoring counterpoints that have been made while selectively responding only to tangential points, thinking no one notices your strawmen. Vintage Enigma.

That is a totally separate question (and still probably true, by the way). Why are you changing the subject? More vintage Enigma.

 

Mar 25, 2019

The summary that you’re doing a victory lap with clearly states:



You either support the summary’s conclusion or you don’t. Pick one.

 

Mar 25, 2019

This is a bad argument even for you. I don't even know what asinine point you're trying to make, but I've already lowered myself by responding to it earlier. Once again:

If that's too hard for you to understand, let me put it this way. The investigation sought to determine whether the Trump campaign colluded with Russia to steal the election, not to determine whether there was Russian interference. The latter went beyond the scope of the Mueller probe and was taken as a given from the beginning anyway. Again, whether Russia hacked the DNC is another issue entirely. What Mueller thinks about that is totally irrelevant to the conclusion of the investigation into TRUMP and his associates. I don't have to believe a word Mueller says. The result of the probe, i.e. no evidence of collusion found, is all I care about or should care about from my point of view.

 

Mar 25, 2019

So in other words, I'm not allowed to question Mueller's personal opinion about Russian hacking (which he didn't investigate) while at the same time accepting the reality that a two-year investigation turned up zero evidence of collusion between the president and a foreign state. I can't have it both ways, I have to pick one. Gotcha.

 

Mar 25, 2019

Telling you to be consistent is a bad arguement? Lol. You can’t play both sides. You repeatedly criticized the integrity of this investigation & now you’re celebrating their conclusion. Not even their entire conclusion, just the pieces that fit your narrative lol.

No lol. This is wrong. This started as a counter-intelligence investigation before the 2016 election, not a criminal investigation.

Nope. Mueller worked hand-in-hand with the counter-intelligence investigation. The special counsel charged a dozen Russian nationals/entities for their hacking, identity theft, bank fraud etc. last year.

So like I said, you only believe the bits & pieces that fit your narrative lol. You believe Mueller when he concluded the Trump campaign didn’t conspire with the Russian government but not when he concludes the Russian government tried to interfere with the 2016 election. That doesn’t sound bias at all lol.

 

Mar 25, 2019

I've tried to explain ad nauseam that I'm not being inconsistent at all but as usual you're too thickheaded to reason with.

the* conclusion, not "theirs" per se. Again, I am looking at the observable, demonstrable fact that after two years I still see no evidence of collusion - which this entire investigation was prefaced on.

Now you're splitting hairs and using weasel words because you know I'm fundamentally right. Your words a few pages ago:

Some Russian nationals were charged with buying Facebook ads and other s--- no one cares about. So what? Did their efforts even come close to swinging a single state, let alone the election? No. Did they change anyone's mind beyond a few dozen people at the most? Almost certainly not.

The claim of Russian hacking was never seriously investigated by Mueller's team. And to this day that's still all it is, a claim made by the Intel community, and a tentative claim at that. Where's the evidence?

No, I think for myself and base my opinions/conclusions on all the evidence available to me, something you should learn to do.

Again that is Mueller's personal opinion which he inserted into the summary, probably to appease the far left.

 

Mar 25, 2019

So this summary should be meaningless to you lol. Why are you even here celebrating if this conclusion holds no weight to you? Once again, this investigation was not prefaced on collusion. It began as a counter-intelligence investigation lol.

Nice f---ing straw man lmao. None of this has anything to do with my point. You said this:

That bit in the parenthesis is FALSE. You came in here spiking the football as if this summary solidified your argument when it didn’t lol. Now you’re backtracking & trying to say “well...actually... I don’t really care about the summary” lmao.

 

Mar 25, 2019

Ughhh they were but failed miserably. Now that him and his family are innocent, this will only help him for re-election in 2020. Thanks FBI and DOJ. Maybe they should focus on actual criminals and try and lower g--- violence and illegals from the cartel or ms-13 coming over only to break laws, rob and k--- people. Trump should fire Mueller tbh, after all this. Dudes a piece of s--- and would rather go on a witch hunt rather than go after criminal organizations. He’s doing an awful job.

 

Mar 25, 2019

Like, I can sit here & say it’s “Mueller’s personal opinion that the Trump campaign didn’t collude with the Russians.” That’d be f---ing stupid though because he obviously knows more than me & is a more credible character than me. You don’t base these kinds of things off some instinct or because you found something on the 95th page of google that’s contrary to the expert consensus lol.

 

Mar 25, 2019

Now you're referring to a technically separate investigation. Yes, the Mueller probe was sold to the American public as specifically an inquiry into whether Trump or anyone in his camp were basically traitors to the United States. You may look at it as a continuation of the initial FBI investigation if you like, but to what end? What exactly is your point?

No, we were on the same page. You were referring to the Russian Troll Farm and their antics. No one's really talking about that anymore and it has nothing to do with the DNC's hacked emails or Wikileaks, which is what I mean when I talk about Russian hacking.

Oh, so Mueller found proof that the Russians were behind the DNC leak?

That's just you putting words in my mouth. Where in my original post did I even refer to the summary? I was clearly celebrating the death of Russiagate and that Mueller finally admitted he found nothing after 2 years, as I predicted months ago. What is so hard to understand here?

 

Mar 25, 2019

@Enigma, please just answer one simple question for me before I RQ. Yes or no. Does it or does it not stand to reason to think that if Mueller had any dirt on Trump he would have released it?

You will just repeat your nonsense about how I only believe in things that fit into my narrative. Now, I know you're not much of a thinker, but consider the other option. Have you noticed that the reason I doubt the Russian hacking story and the reason I doubt the Trump-Russia story are one and the same? Namely, because of the lack of evidence to support them? It's a novel concept to you, I know, requiring evidence before accepting claims and allegations from just anyone, but it sorta goes into the founding spirit of Western civilization.

I can question Mueller if I want to and I can doubt the entirety of Russiagate if I want to. I don't blindly follow any person, group, political party or ideology. I think for myself, independent of the so-called "expert consensus" which has historically been wrong time and time again. You're just projecting your own partisan mentality on me, but we are not on the same level - light years apart in fact - so don't ever group me and you together again.

 

Mar 25, 2019

It is a continuation of the initial investigation.... when comey got fired, the special counsel took over the investigation + the obstruction of justice case. My point is you still have no idea what you’re talking about here... even after the whole investigation is ended, you’re still so lost lol.

My dude... there were literally indictments over this. Yes, he f---ing has proof.

https://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/d...nt-of-12-russians-for-hacking-democrats/3087/

Imagine having this big of an ego & thinking you’re some know it all deity & that there aren’t individuals who are more knowledge than you & have more first hand information. Jesus Christ...

 

Mar 25, 2019

It doesn't matter. The investigation was prefaced on a fake dossier. You might give it some fancy newspeak label like "counter-intelligence investigation," but the whole investigation was based on a lie.

And? You do understand that just because someone is charged with a crime does not mean they are guilty. Yet you act as though an indictment alone is proof of a crime. Those indictments were just Mueller trying to save face because he couldn't deliver collusion. This story was just a rerun of the original claim of Russian interference but presented as something new and newsworthy. But where is this proof of hacking you speak of? It's still just the same old baseless claim repackaged and you were fooled again.

So then I was foolish to doubt the existence of Iraqi WMDs in the early 2000s because in doing so I was challenging the then "expert consensus"? This is just one of many examples I can cite. It's called not being a sheep dude, I don't know anything about being an all-knowing deity. That's actually how you come off tbh.

 

Mar 25, 2019

The democrats really thought they could illegally bring down Trump hahah foh 2020 is happening