The logic of calling the Mueller investigation a “witch hunt” makes no sense at all

[Billy000]

Some points to consider:

1) Yes, we don’t know how in the investigation is going to end. We don’t know for sure Trump himself is culpable, but we have evidence that his campaign was. Mueller won’t examine Trump until he investigates anyone else.

2) Why would a witch hunt yield guilty pleas from campaign officials? How many more of current indictments will end up this way? There is bound to be more.

3) If Hillary had won the election, and had the exact same scandal, she would have been impeached a year ago. Republicans in office are that corrupt and self interested.

4) MUELLER WOULD OBVIOUSLY NOT UPDATE THE MEDIA IF HE HAD DAMNING EVIDENCE. THAT ISNT HOW IT WORKS. THE INVESTIGATION MUST END BEFORE THE MEDIA KNOWS ALL THE DETAILS.

 

[Lakhota]

George Conway agrees with you.

George Conway, Kellyanne Conway's husband, defends Mueller's investigation - CNNPolitics

 

[TemplarKormac]

Some points to consider:

1) Yes, we don’t know how in the investigation is going to end. We don’t know for sure Trump himself is culpable, but we have evidence that his campaign was. Mueller won’t examine Trump until he investigates anyone else.

2) Why would a witch hunt yield guilty pleas from campaign officials? How many more of current indictments will end up this way? There is bound to be more.

3) If Hillary had won the election, and had the exact same scandal, she would have been impeached a year ago. Republicans in office are that corrupt and self interested.

4) MUELLER WOULD OBVIOUSLY NOT UPDATE THE MEDIA IF HE HAD DAMNING EVIDENCE. THAT ISNT HOW IT WORKS. THE INVESTIGATION MUST END BEFORE THE MEDIA KNOWS ALL THE DETAILS.

Hey, isn't that what you called the Hillary email investigation? A "witch hunt"? Well, I can't argue, the name fits, but the logic doesn't...

 

[Billy000]

Some points to consider:

1) Yes, we don’t know how in the investigation is going to end. We don’t know for sure Trump himself is culpable, but we have evidence that his campaign was. Mueller won’t examine Trump until he investigates anyone else.

2) Why would a witch hunt yield guilty pleas from campaign officials? How many more of current indictments will end up this way? There is bound to be more.

3) If Hillary had won the election, and had the exact same scandal, she would have been impeached a year ago. Republicans in office are that corrupt and self interested.

4) MUELLER WOULD OBVIOUSLY NOT UPDATE THE MEDIA IF HE HAD DAMNING EVIDENCE. THAT ISNT HOW IT WORKS. THE INVESTIGATION MUST END BEFORE THE MEDIA KNOWS ALL THE DETAILS.

Hey, isn't that what you called the Hillary email investigation? A "witch hunt"? Well, I can't argue, the name fits, but the logic doesn't...

lol you cons are the kings of the whataboutism fallacy. It’s so stupid. I don’t think the Hillary investigation was a witch hunt. I never once said it was BS. How about you be a grown up and focus on the actual topic?

 

[TemplarKormac]

Some points to consider:

1) Yes, we don’t know how in the investigation is going to end. We don’t know for sure Trump himself is culpable, but we have evidence that his campaign was. Mueller won’t examine Trump until he investigates anyone else.

2) Why would a witch hunt yield guilty pleas from campaign officials? How many more of current indictments will end up this way? There is bound to be more.

3) If Hillary had won the election, and had the exact same scandal, she would have been impeached a year ago. Republicans in office are that corrupt and self interested.

4) MUELLER WOULD OBVIOUSLY NOT UPDATE THE MEDIA IF HE HAD DAMNING EVIDENCE. THAT ISNT HOW IT WORKS. THE INVESTIGATION MUST END BEFORE THE MEDIA KNOWS ALL THE DETAILS.

Hey, isn't that what you called the Hillary email investigation? A "witch hunt"? Well, I can't argue, the name fits, but the logic doesn't...

lol you cons are the kings of the whataboutism fallacy. It’s so stupid. I don’t think the Hillary investigation was a witch hunt. I never once said it was BS. How about you be a grown up and focus on the actual topic?

When your topics consist of baiting an name calling, I can't help but troll your threads. You are so unbelievably biased that nobody can have a reasonable debate with you. As for saying "you never said it was a witch hunt", try looking at 3) on your list. That is tantamount to calling it a witch hunt. So don't lie to me.

 

[Billy000]

Some points to consider:

1) Yes, we don’t know how in the investigation is going to end. We don’t know for sure Trump himself is culpable, but we have evidence that his campaign was. Mueller won’t examine Trump until he investigates anyone else.

2) Why would a witch hunt yield guilty pleas from campaign officials? How many more of current indictments will end up this way? There is bound to be more.

3) If Hillary had won the election, and had the exact same scandal, she would have been impeached a year ago. Republicans in office are that corrupt and self interested.

4) MUELLER WOULD OBVIOUSLY NOT UPDATE THE MEDIA IF HE HAD DAMNING EVIDENCE. THAT ISNT HOW IT WORKS. THE INVESTIGATION MUST END BEFORE THE MEDIA KNOWS ALL THE DETAILS.

Hey, isn't that what you called the Hillary email investigation? A "witch hunt"? Well, I can't argue, the name fits, but the logic doesn't...

lol you cons are the kings of the whataboutism fallacy. It’s so stupid. I don’t think the Hillary investigation was a witch hunt. I never once said it was BS. How about you be a grown up and focus on the actual topic?

When your topics consist of baiting an name calling, I can't help but troll your threads. You are so unbelievably biased that nobody can have a reasonable debate with you. As for saying "you never said it was a witch hunt", try looking at 3) on your list. That is tantamount to calling it a witch hunt. So don't lie to me.

Lol you weren’t trolling. You actually thought you had a real argument. I’m also not sure you know what tantamount is.

 

[BluesLegend]

I'm sorry I was distracted by Trump's HUGE win on NK, is Mueller even a story anymore? Seems like it fell off the news radar.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Some points to consider:

1) Yes, we don’t know how in the investigation is going to end. We don’t know for sure Trump himself is culpable, but we have evidence that his campaign was. Mueller won’t examine Trump until he investigates anyone else.

2) Why would a witch hunt yield guilty pleas from campaign officials? How many more of current indictments will end up this way? There is bound to be more.

3) If Hillary had won the election, and had the exact same scandal, she would have been impeached a year ago. Republicans in office are that corrupt and self interested.

4) MUELLER WOULD OBVIOUSLY NOT UPDATE THE MEDIA IF HE HAD DAMNING EVIDENCE. THAT ISNT HOW IT WORKS. THE INVESTIGATION MUST END BEFORE THE MEDIA KNOWS ALL THE DETAILS.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

Some points to consider:

1) Yes, we don’t know how in the investigation is going to end. We don’t know for sure Trump himself is culpable, but we have evidence that his campaign was. Mueller won’t examine Trump until he investigates anyone else.

2) Why would a witch hunt yield guilty pleas from campaign officials? How many more of current indictments will end up this way? There is bound to be more.

3) If Hillary had won the election, and had the exact same scandal, she would have been impeached a year ago. Republicans in office are that corrupt and self interested.

4) MUELLER WOULD OBVIOUSLY NOT UPDATE THE MEDIA IF HE HAD DAMNING EVIDENCE. THAT ISNT HOW IT WORKS. THE INVESTIGATION MUST END BEFORE THE MEDIA KNOWS ALL THE DETAILS.

Hey, isn't that what you called the Hillary email investigation? A "witch hunt"? Well, I can't argue, the name fits, but the logic doesn't...

lol you cons are the kings of the whataboutism fallacy. It’s so stupid. I don’t think the Hillary investigation was a witch hunt. I never once said it was BS. How about you be a grown up and focus on the actual topic?

When your topics consist of baiting an name calling, I can't help but troll your threads. You are so unbelievably biased that nobody can have a reasonable debate with you. As for saying "you never said it was a witch hunt", try looking at 3) on your list. That is tantamount to calling it a witch hunt. So don't lie to me.

Lol you weren’t trolling. You actually thought you had a real argument. I’m also not sure you know what tantamount is.

Except he does have an argument. There was actual evidence against Hillary, which was run down by Comey in a speech, and the left called it a witch hunt.

Here, there's no evidence against Donald Trump, and even if he had colluded with the Russians, and there's not even any evidence that Russia did anything, there's nothing illegal about doing so. This investigation is for show, and even if it weren't, they have been investigating for HOW LONG NOW? Yet they have found nothing.

 

[Crepitus]

Some points to consider:

1) Yes, we don’t know how in the investigation is going to end. We don’t know for sure Trump himself is culpable, but we have evidence that his campaign was. Mueller won’t examine Trump until he investigates anyone else.

2) Why would a witch hunt yield guilty pleas from campaign officials? How many more of current indictments will end up this way? There is bound to be more.

3) If Hillary had won the election, and had the exact same scandal, she would have been impeached a year ago. Republicans in office are that corrupt and self interested.

4) MUELLER WOULD OBVIOUSLY NOT UPDATE THE MEDIA IF HE HAD DAMNING EVIDENCE. THAT ISNT HOW IT WORKS. THE INVESTIGATION MUST END BEFORE THE MEDIA KNOWS ALL THE DETAILS.

It's called a witch hunt because tRump is playing to his base. They aren't very bright, so they emote rather than think.

 

[Billy000]

Some points to consider:

1) Yes, we don’t know how in the investigation is going to end. We don’t know for sure Trump himself is culpable, but we have evidence that his campaign was. Mueller won’t examine Trump until he investigates anyone else.

2) Why would a witch hunt yield guilty pleas from campaign officials? How many more of current indictments will end up this way? There is bound to be more.

3) If Hillary had won the election, and had the exact same scandal, she would have been impeached a year ago. Republicans in office are that corrupt and self interested.

4) MUELLER WOULD OBVIOUSLY NOT UPDATE THE MEDIA IF HE HAD DAMNING EVIDENCE. THAT ISNT HOW IT WORKS. THE INVESTIGATION MUST END BEFORE THE MEDIA KNOWS ALL THE DETAILS.

Hey, isn't that what you called the Hillary email investigation? A "witch hunt"? Well, I can't argue, the name fits, but the logic doesn't...

lol you cons are the kings of the whataboutism fallacy. It’s so stupid. I don’t think the Hillary investigation was a witch hunt. I never once said it was BS. How about you be a grown up and focus on the actual topic?

When your topics consist of baiting an name calling, I can't help but troll your threads. You are so unbelievably biased that nobody can have a reasonable debate with you. As for saying "you never said it was a witch hunt", try looking at 3) on your list. That is tantamount to calling it a witch hunt. So don't lie to me.

Lol you weren’t trolling. You actually thought you had a real argument. I’m also not sure you know what tantamount is.

Except he does have an argument. There was actual evidence against Hillary, which was run down by Comey in a speech, and the left called it a witch hunt.

Here, there's no evidence against Donald Trump, and even if he had colluded with the Russians, and there's not even any evidence that Russia did anything, there's nothing illegal about doing so. This investigation is for show, and even if it weren't, they have been investigating for HOW LONG NOW? Yet they have found nothing.

What are you talking about? How do you know they found nothing if we’ve had indictments and guilty pleas? What sense does that make? And again, Mueller isn’t going to update the media. That isn’t at all how it works.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

Hey, isn't that what you called the Hillary email investigation? A "witch hunt"? Well, I can't argue, the name fits, but the logic doesn't...

lol you cons are the kings of the whataboutism fallacy. It’s so stupid. I don’t think the Hillary investigation was a witch hunt. I never once said it was BS. How about you be a grown up and focus on the actual topic?

When your topics consist of baiting an name calling, I can't help but troll your threads. You are so unbelievably biased that nobody can have a reasonable debate with you. As for saying "you never said it was a witch hunt", try looking at 3) on your list. That is tantamount to calling it a witch hunt. So don't lie to me.

Lol you weren’t trolling. You actually thought you had a real argument. I’m also not sure you know what tantamount is.

Except he does have an argument. There was actual evidence against Hillary, which was run down by Comey in a speech, and the left called it a witch hunt.

Here, there's no evidence against Donald Trump, and even if he had colluded with the Russians, and there's not even any evidence that Russia did anything, there's nothing illegal about doing so. This investigation is for show, and even if it weren't, they have been investigating for HOW LONG NOW? Yet they have found nothing.

What are you talking about? How do you know they found nothing if we’ve had indictments and guilty pleas? What sense does that make? And again, Mueller isn’t going to update the media. That isn’t at all how it works.

Of course he won't update the media, there's nothing to say aside from the obvious fact that there's no evidence yet.

Guilty pleas and indictments means only supposed wrongdoing on the part of the people indicted, it does not mean there's "evidence of Russian collusion".

 

[Frankeneinstein]

1) Yes, we don’t know how in the investigation is going to end. We don’t know for sure Trump himself is culpable, but we have evidence that his campaign was. Mueller won’t examine Trump until he investigates anyone else.

2) Why would a witch hunt yield guilty pleas from campaign officials? How many more of current indictments will end up this way? There is bound to be more.

3) If Hillary had won the election, and had the exact same scandal, she would have been impeached a year ago. Republicans in office are that corrupt and self interested.

4) MUELLER WOULD OBVIOUSLY NOT UPDATE THE MEDIA IF HE HAD DAMNING EVIDENCE. THAT ISNT HOW IT WORKS. THE INVESTIGATION MUST END BEFORE THE MEDIA KNOWS ALL THE DETAILS.

5) We all need to show some respect for the dead

 

[blackhawk]

How many people have plead guilty to or been indicted on charges related to helping Russia interfer in the 2016 election or for colluding with Russia in regards to the 2016? You have guilty pleas for making false or misleading statements to the FBI and some guily pleas and indictments for some white collar crimes that took place years before the 2016 election and before there was ever a Trump campigan for President. So given no one has plead guilty to or been indicted on anything that was supposed to be the main focus ot the Mueller investigation the term witchhunt does not seem out of bounds.

 

[Billy000]

lol you cons are the kings of the whataboutism fallacy. It’s so stupid. I don’t think the Hillary investigation was a witch hunt. I never once said it was BS. How about you be a grown up and focus on the actual topic?

When your topics consist of baiting an name calling, I can't help but troll your threads. You are so unbelievably biased that nobody can have a reasonable debate with you. As for saying "you never said it was a witch hunt", try looking at 3) on your list. That is tantamount to calling it a witch hunt. So don't lie to me.

Lol you weren’t trolling. You actually thought you had a real argument. I’m also not sure you know what tantamount is.

Except he does have an argument. There was actual evidence against Hillary, which was run down by Comey in a speech, and the left called it a witch hunt.

Here, there's no evidence against Donald Trump, and even if he had colluded with the Russians, and there's not even any evidence that Russia did anything, there's nothing illegal about doing so. This investigation is for show, and even if it weren't, they have been investigating for HOW LONG NOW? Yet they have found nothing.

What are you talking about? How do you know they found nothing if we’ve had indictments and guilty pleas? What sense does that make? And again, Mueller isn’t going to update the media. That isn’t at all how it works.

Of course he won't update the media, there's nothing to say aside from the obvious fact that there's no evidence yet.

Guilty pleas and indictments means only supposed wrongdoing on the part of the people indicted, it does not mean there's "evidence of Russian collusion".

Okay so that kid was rambling a bunch of non sense, but his point is like yours, that indictments are not evidence of Russian collusion. You do realize of course, indictments are made BECAUSE of evidence right? This doesn’t somehow mean these people shouldn’t be tried and that the investigation itself is a witch hunt. Don’t you realize how ridiculous that sounds?

 

[Wyatt earp]

Some points to consider:

1) Yes, we don’t know how in the investigation is going to end. We don’t know for sure Trump himself is culpable, but we have evidence that his campaign was. Mueller won’t examine Trump until he investigates anyone else.

2) Why would a witch hunt yield guilty pleas from campaign officials? How many more of current indictments will end up this way? There is bound to be more.

3) If Hillary had won the election, and had the exact same scandal, she would have been impeached a year ago. Republicans in office are that corrupt and self interested.

4) MUELLER WOULD OBVIOUSLY NOT UPDATE THE MEDIA IF HE HAD DAMNING EVIDENCE. THAT ISNT HOW IT WORKS. THE INVESTIGATION MUST END BEFORE THE MEDIA KNOWS ALL THE DETAILS.

Your trolling Billy and you know it.

 

[toobfreak]

3) If Hillary had won the election, and had the exact same scandal, she would have been impeached a year ago. Republicans in office are that corrupt and self interested..

BABY BULLCRAP. If Hillary had won the election, Comey STILL would have been fired but there would be no investigation, no charges of obstruction, no "Russian" scandal. Look what Mueller has gotten us: one person who may be arrested on what? Possible bank fraud and possible campaign finance investigations. Why? Because he has been close to Trump and has been his lawyer, so by getting to Cohen, they hope to get at Trump. The whole motivation here has always been to try to get Trump.

NULLIFY AN ELECTION. A legally camouflaged political coup.

Russia? Election tampering? We have a guy, George Soros who has for years openly and publicly spent millions trying to influence elections and politics in this country, OSTENSIBLY for the Left, for Europe, and for the Democrats.

RESULT:

WHERE IS THE "Investigation" into any of that?

Zero. Nadda. ZIP.

Case closed.

 

[Oddball]

 

[Pumpkin Row]

When your topics consist of baiting an name calling, I can't help but troll your threads. You are so unbelievably biased that nobody can have a reasonable debate with you. As for saying "you never said it was a witch hunt", try looking at 3) on your list. That is tantamount to calling it a witch hunt. So don't lie to me.

Lol you weren’t trolling. You actually thought you had a real argument. I’m also not sure you know what tantamount is.

Except he does have an argument. There was actual evidence against Hillary, which was run down by Comey in a speech, and the left called it a witch hunt.

Here, there's no evidence against Donald Trump, and even if he had colluded with the Russians, and there's not even any evidence that Russia did anything, there's nothing illegal about doing so. This investigation is for show, and even if it weren't, they have been investigating for HOW LONG NOW? Yet they have found nothing.

What are you talking about? How do you know they found nothing if we’ve had indictments and guilty pleas? What sense does that make? And again, Mueller isn’t going to update the media. That isn’t at all how it works.

Of course he won't update the media, there's nothing to say aside from the obvious fact that there's no evidence yet.

Guilty pleas and indictments means only supposed wrongdoing on the part of the people indicted, it does not mean there's "evidence of Russian collusion".

Okay so that kid was rambling a bunch of non sense, but his point is like yours, that indictments are not evidence of Russian collusion. You do realize of course, indictments are made BECAUSE of evidence right? This doesn’t somehow mean these people shouldn’t be tried and that the investigation itself is a witch hunt. Don’t you realize how ridiculous that sounds?

You do realize, of course, that Indictment literally MEANS accusation, right?

No, what we know is that the government didn't like the ads these Russian people bought, and then decided to charge them with a crime.

Do you realize how ridiculous the entire premise of this investigation is? They're investigating Trump for something there's no evidence of, for something that's not illegal.

I'd also like to point out that you didn't respond to any of the videos points, only the thing he was referring to with said points.

 

[leftwinger]

There's nothing there Bill. Sorry a few Faceboik ads bought on the free market tricked you to vote Trump.