Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Tuesday, December 05, 2017

US special counsel Robert Mueller has asked Germany's Deutsche Bank to provide records of accounts held by Donald Trump, according to reports. Mueller issued a subpoena to the bank several weeks ago demanding data on transactions linked to the US president, Reuters news agency and a German newspaper say. Deutsche Bank has previously rejected similar demands, citing privacy laws. Mueller is investigating claims of collusion between Trump and Russia.

Advertisement

Advertisement

More

Alternate links: Google News | Twitter

The revelation that Robert Mueller has subpoenaed Donald Trump's Deutsche Bank financial records is an indication that his investigation is taking dead aim at the president.

Until now, Mueller has operated on the periphery - focusing on former campaign chair Paul Manafort's previous foreign lobbying efforts, the Russian contacts of George Papadopoulos, a relatively minor foreign policy advisor, and the post-election actions of rump's confidant Michael Flynn.

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Oh my, Mueller has crossed the red line in the sand Dotard drew. How long till the firing?

#1 | Posted by 726 at 2017-12-05 11:02 AM | Reply

How long till the firing?

#1 | Posted by 726 at 2017-12-05 11:02 AMFlag: (Choose)FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusive

He's going to have to fire the man. On the day he does the world will know that the President of the United States is a crook and a traitor, by what amounts to personal confession.

#2 | Posted by Zed at 2017-12-05 11:20 AM | Reply

Next up, his birth certificate and college transcripts.

#3 | Posted by visitor_ at 2017-12-05 12:47 PM | Reply

Funny thing about the big money-center banks: they write down stuff like where wire transfers came from and where they go. Deutsche Bank is in no position to do anything but fully cooperate and give up what will amount to a number of smoking guns.

As I've written before here's how this plays out: Trump is greatly in debt to various Russian lenders, including banks with direct connections to Putin and the Russian government. The Russkies have told the Dotard that if he plays ball with them as President, they will go lightly on his debts to them. Being driven by ego and the façade that he is some business genius and negotiating ace, Donald will avoid at all cost showing that he is in trouble with his loans and is not the billionaire that he has long claimed. Mueller will show that Trump colluded with the Russians to protect his business interests, even at the cost of giving up the US of A to a mortal enemy.

If Mueller gets fired, others (e.g., House and Senate investigators) will pick up the trail. If not fired, Mueller will be able to present evidence of criminal acts and conspiracy by some of the dumbest criminals in Western History, i.e., the Trump Crime Family.

Can you say 'President Pence'? You will in the near future...

#4 | Posted by catdog at 2017-12-05 01:00 PM | Reply

This may be the straw than breaks the orange camel's back. Trump's ghostwriter for Art of the Deal said that what really ticks Trump off is questioning his wealth.

And this does more than just that. I bet they find payments in rubles marked, Golden Showers.

#5 | Posted by Corky at 2017-12-05 01:09 PM | Reply


This is Mr Mueller's first foray (that I am aware of) into into the financial realm.

As such, I suspect Mr Mueller's real target is not within the records of Deutsche Bank, and that the Deutsche Bank records are merely the stepping stones to get to the real records that Mr Mueller wants to get his subpoena powers on.

#6 | Posted by LampLighter at 2017-12-05 01:19 PM | Reply

"In the summer of 2016, The New Yorker detailed how Deutsche Bank was involved with a complex scheme to move as much as $10 billion out of Russia on behalf of powerful individuals facing sanctions in the West.

In fact, according to Deutsche Bank's own public filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Department of Justice is actively investigating the case. However, last month, CNN reported that since Trump came to office, the Justice Department investigation into the Russian money-laundering scandal had gone dormant.

It is not clear why. (The Department of Justice did not respond to a request for comment.)

Earlier this year, congressional Democrats asked the German bank to turn over information regarding Trump's loans with the firm, but the bank rebuffed the requests.

There is no public indication of precisely why Mueller subpoenaed the bank. Michael Offit, a former head of Deutsche Bank's commercial real estate desk who initiated the bank's relationship with Trump in the 1990s, raises one possibility: Mueller could be interested in who provided the money Deutsche Bank used for the Trump loans.

"The source of the money would be invisible to Trump, at least theoretically invisible to Trump. Maybe [Deutsche's private bank] is making loans using pooled money from all its depositors, or maybe it's just from one individual or group, i.e. Russians," Offit says. "That's probably what Mueller is trying to find out."

In a statement, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), said, "Special Counsel Mueller's subpoena of Deutsche Bank would be a very significant development. If Russia laundered money through the Trump Organization, it would be far more compromising than any salacious video and could be used as leverage against Donald Trump and his associates and family."

much more @
www.motherjones.com

#7 | Posted by Corky at 2017-12-05 01:30 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

Trump saved us from a Hillary presidency. If the Russians helped with that (I don't think they did), we owe them our gratitude.

Exactly what did Trump give the Russians for their "collusion" that they would not have gotten from Hillary (The Reset Button)?

#8 | Posted by visitor_ at 2017-12-05 01:30 PM | Reply | Funny: 3

"We have learned, however, that after the election, the Trump transition team actively undermined sanctions that President Barack Obama had imposed on Russia for its election interference."

www.washingtonpost.com

#9 | Posted by Corky at 2017-12-05 01:35 PM | Reply

He's going to have to fire the man. On the day he does the world will know that the President of the United States is a crook and a traitor, by what amounts to personal confession.

#2 | Posted by Zed

And on the same day the world will know the republican party is just fine with having a crook and traitor in the white house with nuclear codes, because he gives tax cuts for the rich and lets them ruin the planet, which is all they really care about.

#10 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-12-05 01:47 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 4

Advertisement

Advertisement

Trump saved us from a Hillary presidency. If the Russians helped with that (I don't think they did), we owe them our gratitude.

Exactly what did Trump give the Russians for their "collusion" that they would not have gotten from Hillary (The Reset Button)?

#8 | Posted by visitor_

What exactly do you think would have been so bad about a hillary presidency?
Are you a millionaire who needs a tax cut?
Are you dumb enough to think she was going to take your guns?
Do you profit from the destruction of the environment?
Would she have appointed more bankers and goldman sachs sociopaths than trump did?
Would she have been risking nuclear conflict with childish tweets?

#11 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-12-05 01:49 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 8

Trump saved us from a Hillary presidency. If the Russians helped with that (I don't think they did), we owe them our gratitude.

#8 | POSTED BY VISITOR_

"Saved" us... You know, like how terminal cancer "saves" you from having to go to invest in your 401K..

#12 | Posted by Sycophant at 2017-12-05 01:57 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

VISITOR

Then Trump has nothing to worry about, right???? Are you sure? Really, really sure? Would you stake your life on it?

#13 | Posted by Twinpac at 2017-12-05 02:01 PM | Reply

What exactly do you think would have been so bad about a hillary presidency?
Are you a millionaire who needs a tax cut? No and Yes
Are you dumb enough to think she was going to take your guns? Yes
Do you profit from the destruction of the environment? Yes, show me someone that lives without leaving a trace.
Would she have appointed more bankers and goldman sachs sociopaths than trump did? No, she's pretty well connected with the banks.
Would she have been risking nuclear conflict with childish tweets? No. But she is a warmonger.

#14 | Posted by visitor_ at 2017-12-05 02:03 PM | Reply | Funny: 2

Next up, his (Trump's) birth certificate and college transcripts.

#3 | Posted by visitor_ at 2017-

Not a bad idea at all. Also, DNA analysis. I want to find what Nazis is actually his dad.

#15 | Posted by Zed at 2017-12-05 02:25 PM | Reply

Was Hillary talking about war with Iran? No, that is Dotard idiocy.
Was Hillary sabre rattling with the Norks? No, that is Dotard idiocy.
Will the GoP give you a tax cut? No, but they will cut Medicare and SS.

Face it, you like Trump because he wants to keep the brown people out, because that is what selfish, loser racists really want.

#16 | Posted by bored at 2017-12-05 02:26 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 5

Trump saved us from a Hillary presidency. If the Russians helped with that (I don't think they did), we owe them our gratitude.

#8 | POSTED BY VISITOR

No we don't, your treasonous little whelp.

#17 | Posted by Zed at 2017-12-05 02:26 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

What exactly do you think would have been so bad about a hillary presidency?
Are you a millionaire who needs a tax cut? No and Yes
Are you dumb enough to think she was going to take your guns? Yes
Do you profit from the destruction of the environment? Yes, show me someone that lives without leaving a trace.
Would she have appointed more bankers and goldman sachs sociopaths than trump did? No, she's pretty well connected with the banks.
Would she have been risking nuclear conflict with childish tweets? No. But she is a warmonger.

#14 | Posted by visitor_

Well if you're not a millionaire, or at least making 6 figures, you lose in trumps tax bill, which also blows up the deficit which you and your kids will have to pay off. So hillary would have been better for you.

Nice to hear a trumper admit their own stupidity about falling for gun seizure propaganda.

No surprise that because of your stupidity, you think you can't help the environment unless you live without a trace.

So you admit trump works for the banks just like hillary.

So you've chosen a reckless warmonger over an intelligent calculating warmonger. Is that better?

So I ask again, what would hillary have done that is worse than trump? It must be something really bad if you're willing to pick a dangerous mental patient instead of her.

#18 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-12-05 02:29 PM | Reply

The records have been turned over...now to go buy yet another case of popcorn...this should get good !

#19 | Posted by ghoti at 2017-12-05 02:37 PM | Reply

Next up, his (Trump's) birth certificate and college transcripts.
#3 | Posted by visitor_ at 2017-

We know he went to college already. His professors have come forward and said he was one of the least intelligent students the school had ever seen and was only admitted because of his father's influence.

#20 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2017-12-05 02:46 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 6

Trump lawyer denies Deutsche Bank got subpoena on Trump accounts

www.reuters.com

To quote: "THIS ISN'T HAPPENING!!"

#21 | Posted by Corky at 2017-12-05 04:41 PM | Reply

"Fake News," apparently:

Citing an anonymous and unidentified official, Reuters reported earlier Tuesday that Mueller's team had subpoenaed records from Deutsche Bank, where Trump is believed to have a line of credit and to have conducted tens of millions of dollars in transactions.

But Sanders said those reports are false and were another example of the news media getting something wrong in the frenzy to report on the investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election.
thehill.com

#22 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2017-12-05 05:07 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#14 | POSTED BY VISITOR_

You must have been just as scared that B. Hussein was going to take your guns. Did he?

Yeah, didn't think so.

#23 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2017-12-05 05:13 PM | Reply

"Fake News," apparently:
Citing an anonymous and unidentified official, Reuters reported earlier Tuesday that Mueller's team had subpoenaed records from Deutsche Bank, where Trump is believed to have a line of credit and to have conducted tens of millions of dollars in transactions.
But Sanders said those reports are false and were another example of the news media getting something wrong in the frenzy to report on the investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election.
thehill.com

#22 | POSTED BY RSTYBEACH11

At this point, its really really hard to trust Sanders or anything from the White House.

#24 | Posted by Sycophant at 2017-12-05 05:15 PM | Reply

#16 | POSTED BY BORED

No, I think VISITOR loves Trump because Trump is anti-lib.

And anyone anti-lib has got VISITOR's support. Much like the 70% of Alabama voters that think Moore's accusers are lying. Moore is anti-lib and (seemingly) a child molester. They'll ignore the latter as long as the former is steadfastly in place, which it is, which is why Moore is going to win. Too bad it will be a double-edged sword for the Right. They will be under Roy Moore's party moving forward, not Trump's.

And THAT's gonna sting come 2018.

#25 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2017-12-05 05:16 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

#24 | POSTED BY SYCOPHANT

I entirely agree.

#26 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2017-12-05 05:17 PM | Reply

Next up, his birth certificate and college transcripts.

#3 | POSTED BY VISITOR_

Good idea. After all it is what Trump and most of Trump's supporters demanded of Obama.
And by the way, with Trump frequently bragging about what a great student he was, you would think if they were all that great he would have framed copies of his college transcripts plastered all over his resorts and the White House by now.

What is he hiding?

#27 | Posted by woe_is_W at 2017-12-05 07:59 PM | Reply

More covfefe very newish fakey news...doubleplus good

Next there will be a retraction about vice presidents bidens wifes hate for the kitty grabber in chief

#28 | Posted by mutant at 2017-12-05 08:50 PM | Reply

Hot on the trail of money laundering I see. What will Deutsche Bank give up?

#29 | Posted by bayviking at 2017-12-05 09:38 PM | Reply

Trump wanted approval from Putin for "Moscow's Largest Hotel" and more like it across Russia.... perhaps bad enough to offer to launder money and not implement sanctions.

#30 | Posted by Corky at 2017-12-05 10:29 PM | Reply

What could his Deutsche bank records possibly have to do with collusion with Russia?

I thought that, and that alone, was what he was supposed to be investigating.

#31 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-12-06 01:49 PM | Reply

What could his Deutsche bank records possibly have to do with collusion with Russia?
I thought that, and that alone, was what he was supposed to be investigating.
#31 | Posted by JeffJ at

You're not this dense Jeffie, stop trolling.

#32 | Posted by truthhurts at 2017-12-06 02:02 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"What could his Deutsche bank records possibly have to do with collusion with Russia?"

Tell us again how you're a "Never Trump" guy.

#33 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-12-06 02:10 PM | Reply

"What could his Deutsche bank records possibly have to do with collusion with Russia?"
Tell us again how you're a "Never Trump" guy.

#33 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

It's a legitimate question. Mueller should be limiting his investigation to Russian collusion. His first scalp, the Manafort indictment, had nothing at all to do with collusion with Russia. This investigation has an increasingly partisan appearance which harms its credibility. That is not a good thing.

#34 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-12-06 02:17 PM | Reply

"Mueller should be limiting his investigation to Russian collusion."

Unless you're saying a bank could not be involved in collusion between the USA and Russia, what are you saying?

#35 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-12-06 02:21 PM | Reply

"This investigation has an increasingly partisan appearance"

How so? Is Deutsche Bank partisan?

#36 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-12-06 02:23 PM | Reply

Unless you're saying a bank could not be involved in collusion between the USA and Russia, what are you saying?

#35 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

That's what I'm saying. I don't see how his Deutsche bank records could have a role.

#37 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-12-06 02:23 PM | Reply

That's what I'm saying. I don't see how his Deutsche bank records could have a role.
#37 | Posted by JeffJ

M
O
N
E
Y
L
A
U
N
D
E
R
I
N
G

#38 | Posted by truthhurts at 2017-12-06 02:29 PM | Reply

You don't see how money could ever be involved in collusion then?

#39 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-12-06 02:29 PM | Reply

That's what I'm saying. I don't see how his Deutsche bank records could have a role.

#37 | Posted by JeffJ

As I've said before, you wouldn't have so many questions and doubts about russiagate if you got your news from real sources, which have reported extensively on why this is important.

Deutsche bank laundered money for putin for years. Then when no other banks would lend to him because he screwed so many of them over, deutsche bank started making it rain money on trump.

This goes directly to motive for collusion on both trump and putin's part.

Do you still not see how his Deutsche bank records could have a role?

#40 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-12-06 02:30 PM | Reply

How so? Is Deutsche Bank partisan?

#36 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

The Manafort indictment being based upon this investigation. That an obviously partisan investigator was a key player in both the Clinton investigation and this investigation. Even though Mueller reassigned Strzok reassigned, he tried to keep it from congressional inquiry. Mueller stacking his team with high profile Dem lawyers. Given that 95% of all federal employee donations in the '16 election cycle went to Clinton...the FBI is a participant in this investigation.

Yes, it very much has a partisan appearance. Hopefully, everybody involved is operating professionally and keeping personal biases in check.

#41 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-12-06 02:32 PM | Reply

"I don't see how his Deutsche bank records could have a role."

Setting aside your not seeing it, how does that make it "partisan?"

Is there a way to investigate a President that belongs to a political party that doesn't seem "partisan," JeffJ? Especially to yuuuge fans of the President's party like you?

#42 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-12-06 02:33 PM | Reply

Deutsche bank laundered money for putin for years. Then when no other banks would lend to him because he screwed so many of them over, deutsche bank started making it rain money on trump.
This goes directly to motive for collusion on both trump and putin's part.
Do you still not see how his Deutsche bank records could have a role?

#40 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY

I see it now. I violated one of my own rules and commented having only read the opening paragraph reproduced at the top of the thread. I should have read the linked article. My bad.

#43 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-12-06 02:34 PM | Reply

In appointing Mueller, however, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein gave him broad authority not only to investigate "any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated" with Trump's campaign, but also to examine "any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation."

Rosenstein also gave Mueller the power to investigate "any other matters within the scope of 28 C.F.R. § 600.4(a)" -- including perjury, obstruction of justice, destruction of evidence, and intimidation of witnesses.

www.businessinsider.com

And don't be so naive Jeffie. Mueller is following the money. And he can follow that trail where ever it leads.

If Trump broke the law to get to where he is don't you think he should be held accountable?

And Deutsche Bank has ties to Russian oligarchs and basically was a lifeline for the Trump Organization's businesses in the early 2000s, when US lenders turned their backs on the then-struggling business tycoon. This could have easily placed Trump in a position of being blackmailed now.

#44 | Posted by donnerboy at 2017-12-06 02:38 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"Given that 95% of all federal employee donations in the '16 election cycle went to Clinton."

Oh, so the entire Federal government is partisan now.

You trotted out this Deutsche Bank thing as giving the appearance of partisanship, yet your actual evidence of partisanship has nothing at all to do with Deutsche Bank.

And that's dishonest.

#45 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-12-06 02:43 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

JEFF

"I thought that, and that alone, was what he was supposed to be investigating."

Then you'd be wrong. Mueller has full authority to pursue any crimes he uncovers during the process of the investigation, i.e. Manafort and Gates.

As for the bank records, Mueller would probably like to know if any of Trump's loans were "sold" to Russian oligarchs which, if so, would put Trump in a position of "owing" (doing favors) to appease his Kremlin backed creditors. They'd have him in their pocket, so to speak.

There is also some evidence that Trump vis-a-vie Deutsche was engaged in money laundering for his BFF's in Moscow, particularly as it pertains to some of Trump's shady real estate deals.

#46 | Posted by Twinpac at 2017-12-06 02:48 PM | Reply

And that's dishonest.

#45 | Posted by snoofy

That's just our Jeffy being Jeffy!

#47 | Posted by donnerboy at 2017-12-06 02:49 PM | Reply

You trotted out this Deutsche Bank thing as giving the appearance of partisanship, yet your actual evidence of partisanship has nothing at all to do with Deutsche Bank.
And that's dishonest.

#45 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

I admitted my mistake in #43. Surely you and Donner both saw that post.

#48 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-12-06 02:51 PM | Reply

Surely you and Donner both saw that post.

#48 | Posted by JeffJ

I did. And I don't think that we are being that hard on you.

Considering the grief WE get whenever WE jump the gun.

#49 | Posted by donnerboy at 2017-12-06 02:57 PM | Reply

Jeff. They are looking at money for the same reason a prosecutor would look at bank accounts in a murder case. The root cause is usually money and with the Donald, even more so. He would barbeque Mother Theresa on live TV if you paid him enough to do it

#50 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2017-12-06 03:00 PM | Reply

JEFF

Educate yourself.

www.nytimes.com ~ ROD ROSENSTEIN'S LETTER APPOINTING MUELLER SPECIAL COUNCEL

Make note of (b) ~ (i), (ii), and (iii)

Mueller has the authority to investigate anything that arose or will arise out of the investigation.

#51 | Posted by Twinpac at 2017-12-06 03:01 PM | Reply

Mueller stacking his team with high profile Dem lawyers. Given that 95% of all federal employee donations in the '16 election cycle went to Clinton...the FBI is a participant in this investigation.

Yes, it very much has a partisan appearance. Hopefully, everybody involved is operating professionally and keeping personal biases in check.

#41 | Posted by JeffJ

Where do you get the info that he's "stacking his team" with dem lawyers?

Could it be that dem lawyers are the only ones willing to take the job, since republicans are clearly willing to accept russian puppets, sex predators, and child molesters if it helps them keep power?

#52 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-12-06 03:12 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

JEFF

Again, educate yourself.

"Federal regulations prohibit the Justice Department from considering the political affiliation or political contributions of career appointees, including those appointed to the Special Counsel's Office. So the implication that Mueller is making politically motivated hires is quite a stretch, as he is legally prohibited from considering their political affiliations."

You might also want to make a note to yourself that Muller himself is a current and long time Republican.

#53 | Posted by Twinpac at 2017-12-06 03:27 PM | Reply

Twin

His investigative powers are way too broad. That's on Rosenstein. Also I didn't claim that his hires were out of partisanship. I said the investigation itself is giving impression that it's partisan. That's not a good thing.

#54 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-12-06 06:43 PM | Reply

"I said the investigation itself is giving impression that it's partisan."

How so?
How did you arrive at this impression?
And, partisan for whom?

#55 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-12-06 06:47 PM | Reply

His investigative powers are way too broad. That's on Rosenstein. Also I didn't claim that his hires were out of partisanship. I said the investigation itself is giving impression that it's partisan. That's not a good thing.

#54 | Posted by JeffJ

You'd prefer the president's crimes be left in the dark because exposing them is "partisan?"

Yes when one side says nothing happened, and the other side says let's investigate, I guess you could call an investigation "partisan" but that doesn't mean it shouldn't happen.

Using that loose definition, almost anything is "partisan."

#56 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-12-06 07:04 PM | Reply

JEFF

You're outnumbered. Give it up.

Mueller is well known for his professionalism. All of the parties being investigated are well known for their shady deals and dishonesty. They just happen to be Republicans. That doesn't make it partisan. It just makes it a fact.

#57 | Posted by Twinpac at 2017-12-06 08:41 PM | Reply

Of course, Bloomberg has corrected the reporting on this subject. Affiliates of Trump - not Trump himself - are having their bank records looked at. Big difference.

As for the appearance of partisanship, I'll repeat myself again. I am NOT claiming the investigation is partisan - no actual evidence exists to substantiate such a claim. What I am saying is that certain aspects of it give the appearance of being partisan.

#58 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-12-06 08:56 PM | Reply

What I am saying is that certain aspects of it give the appearance of being partisan.

#58 | Posted by JeffJ

To most republicans, anything that deals with reality is partisan. But we shouldn't run our country based on what those morons will whine about.

#59 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-12-06 09:01 PM | Reply

JEFF

If no evidence exists to substantiate such a claim why are you claiming it?

#60 | Posted by Twinpac at 2017-12-06 09:16 PM | Reply

I am not claiming it. I've said so more than once. I don't know how to phrase it differently to enable you to understand my point.

#61 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-12-06 09:18 PM | Reply

I am not claiming it. I've said so more than once. I don't know how to phrase it differently to enable you to understand my point.
#61 | Posted by JeffJ at

The only perception of partisanship are the lies fostered by the right wing media. Reality based folk know it isn't partisan nor does it appear to be partisan.

#62 | Posted by truthhurts at 2017-12-06 09:33 PM | Reply

JEFF

If you're not claiming it, what is this:

"What I AM SAYING is that certain aspects of it give the appearance of being partisan.
#58 | Posted by JeffJ

#63 | Posted by Twinpac at 2017-12-06 09:36 PM | Reply

C'mon JEFF

You didn't even know what Mueller's mandate is. You're too uninformed to make any claim at all.

#64 | Posted by Twinpac at 2017-12-06 09:39 PM | Reply

I knew and know full well what Mueller's mandate is. Andrew McCarthy at NRO has written extensively about how it was WAY too broad and should have been much more narrow and focused.

#65 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-12-06 11:35 PM | Reply

"What I AM SAYING is that certain aspects of it give the appearance of being partisan.
#58 | Posted by JeffJ
#63 | POSTED BY TWINPAC

Saying that something appears partisan is not the same thing as saying something is partisan. I've said the former and have not said the latter.

#66 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-12-06 11:36 PM | Reply

It "appears" JeffJ has a point!
:)

#67 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-12-06 11:47 PM | Reply | Funny: 2

It "appears" JeffJ has a point!
:)
#67 | Posted by snoofy

Yeah, on top of his head.

#68 | Posted by truthhurts at 2017-12-07 12:47 AM | Reply

It's called a witch's hat, Troofy.

#69 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-12-07 01:04 AM | Reply

... what is this: ...
#63 | Posted by Twinpac

Something you take out of context, devoid of nuance and indicative of a lack of synapse.

#70 | Posted by et_al at 2017-12-07 01:38 AM | Reply

JEFFJ

"I knew and know full well what Mueller's mandate is. Andrew McCarthy at NRO has written extensively about how it was WAY too broad and should have been much more narrow and focused."

Oh, then that explains why you're so misinformed. Andrew McCarthy at NRO would like to put handcuffs and a blindfold on Mueller, too. Gee, I can't imagine why. ~ LOL

#71 | Posted by Twinpac at 2017-12-07 08:29 AM | Reply

"Andrew McCarthy at NRO has written extensively about how it was WAY too broad and should have been much more narrow and focused."

Remember when McCarthy wrote the same thing about Ken Starr?

Me neither.

#72 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-12-07 08:34 AM | Reply

Good one, DANFORTH

#73 | Posted by Twinpac at 2017-12-07 09:03 AM | Reply

Oh, then that explains why you're so misinformed. Andrew McCarthy at NRO would like to put handcuffs and a blindfold on Mueller, too. Gee, I can't imagine why. ~ LOL

#71 | POSTED BY TWINPAC

He's a former prosecutor (put the blind sheikh into prison) and I've found that his coverage of legal issues tracks pretty closely with what you can find on Scotusblog and lawfare. I like reading his stuff on legal issues because he's very much in-the-know.

Remember when McCarthy wrote the same thing about Ken Starr?
Me neither.

#72 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

That was 20 years ago and hasn't been a topic of discussion in a LONG time. He wasn't a writer when that was going on, he was a prosecutor.

#74 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-12-07 09:28 AM | Reply

"That was 20 years ago and hasn't been a topic of discussion in a LONG time."

How is that any excuse?

"He wasn't a writer when that was going on, he was a prosecutor."

My point is, he'd be dead silent on a Ken Starr.

#75 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-12-07 09:58 AM | Reply

THE DAILY CALLER – ALEX PFEIFFER

Bloomberg News corrected Wednesday its bombshell report that special counsel Robert Mueller had subpoenaed Deutsche Bank records pertaining to President Donald Trump and his family.

The corrected report said the bank records "pertain to people affiliated" with Trump. Bloomberg had originally reported that Mueller "zeroed in" on Trump.

#76 | Posted by Sniper at 2017-12-07 11:39 AM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2017 World Readable

Drudge Retort