Tug484

I was thinking also a bottle or some left handed cigarettes.
Their ideology only serves to hurt them in the end.

RandyBrian Loc: Texas

How was he blocked? Be specific and provide supporting evidence.

moldyoldy

RandyBrian Loc: Texas

Okay, I have to give you kudos for responding with 'evidence'. However, both these articles use The New York Times, infamous for printing as 'fact' statements from unnamed and anonymous contacts, as well as all sorts of other unethical and biased lies, as their source. And all that source says is that Rosenstein limited Mueller from investigating Trumps financial dealings. Which may (more likely NOT) be true, but even if so, so what? That did not limit them from looking into collusion, for which they found no evidence.

moldyoldy

He blocked him from investigating trump and Russia. The FBI did not investigate because they thought mueller was on it. Rosenstein played both.

RandyBrian Loc: Texas

Moldy, the articles did not say that. Mueller DID investigate Russia and Trump....just not his financial connections to them. At least that is what the articles claimed.
Are inventing facts again?

moldyoldy

The Department of Justice in 2017 narrowed the scope of its investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 e******n, cutting short a probe into President Trump's business ties to Moscow, The New York Times reported.

Then-Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein limited the investigation to exclude those ties without telling the FBI, according to the Times. Andrew McCabe, who served as deputy FBI director at the time, told the newspaper that Rosenstein did not tell him that he was limiting the probe, leading McCabe to believe special counsel Robert Mueller would investigate the president's business connections. McCabe added that he would have tasked the FBI with that aspect of the inquiry had he known Mueller would not investigate it.

"We opened this case in May 2017 because we had information that indicated a national security threat might exist, specifically a counterintelligence threat involving the president and Russia," McCabe told the Times. "I expected that issue and issues related to it would be fully examined by the special counsel team. If a decision was made not to investigate those issues, I am surprised and disappointed. I was not aware of that."

When he installed Mueller as special counsel in May 2017, Rosenstein gave him the mandate of investigating "any links and/or coordination between the Russian government" and the Trump campaign.



In private, however, Rosenstein directed Mueller to limit his investigation to any lawbreaking in connection with Russian e******n i**********e, the Times reported, citing former law enforcement officials.

RandyBrian Loc: Texas

Isn't that what I said?
There is a lot of innuendo mixed in there, but that is typical of the rag NYTs. Do you really consider McCabe a credible source? The folks you are using to support your statements are, in case you did not know, under investigation themselves, essentially for violating their oaths in order to help out the democrats. Let's see where that goes, shall we? In the meantime, let's try not to use guesswork and twisted statements from corrupt officials as gospel.

moldyoldy

Rosenstein admitted what he did.

Capt-jack Loc: Home

You have no idea what a red neck is. But any of them could kick your ass.

Tug484

Boy, that's the t***h.
Those red necks work hard and have muscles built up to prove it.
Butt kickin' is their thang!

moldyoldy

Drinking moonshine and hunting possums is all they do

Tug484

Not out here.
Beer and boot scootin'!
I've seen plenty of their fights!

RandyBrian Loc: Texas

He admitted to limiting the investigation from certain areas. That is not the same as ending it. Mueller CLEARLY looked into Trump colluding with Russia, and found no credible evidence. I know it's a hard concept, the idea that Trump did not do it. It requires any reasonably ethical and intelligent person to reevaluate what they have believed for the past four years, and WHOM they have faithfully listened to for their information.
Some people, however, have a limited ability to understand and accept facts that contradict their hard held beliefs, no matter how misguided they have proven to be. Such people are looked on with scorn, or pity, and are referred to by many various demeaning names, the most common of which is 'democrat v**er'.

moldyoldy

You are hopeless. I will stick to facts.