Your proof was theories and beliefs. Again, that's not worthy evidence and I don't consider it proof by any means. Are you trying to say if I only used one link then it would have been more acceptable since we both would have offered one useless piece of evidence? I already mentioned Muellers team has already lost individuals due to leaks, just not specific to the Cohen and Manafort case, but that apparently doesn't hold any influence over whether the leaks came from Muellers team apparently, since it's not directly pertaining to this case. You keep pointing to his team and exclusive information, but just because the information wasn't exclusive to just them, that means to you that his team couldn't have leaked it? Your evidence was theories and beliefs. You already accused me prior to believing in theories which apparently doesn't count, so why should I take your claim and evidence anymore seriously than my own? Why am I still at it, when you've already explained your set on the fact that it's not a draw? Strength in numbers?

When two gunslingers face off and both empty their chambers and hit nothing but air, it's considered a draw. Trying to explain that your bullet was closer to hitting the other individual than theirs was to hitting you, doesn't count for squat. That may also get you labelled a cry baby, but not to worry, I've already been given that label. Luckily for me, you don't believe in labels.

At Bold:  Exactly who on Mueller team did he lose to leaks.  If you are talking about Strzok and Page then you really need to read up on their stories because it wasn't leaks from them that they were removed from the team.  I hope you have something better than that if not then I have to determine that you have absolutely no clue what a leak is, and you are just arguing a point in ignorance.

The point about exclusive information is that you can directly point it to someone under his control, if not then you are just throwing stuff in the wind to see if it hits anything.  The point is that you have absolutely nothing.  You do not have a name, event or even a rumor that someone from Mueller team has leaked any information.  You provided garbage links and still trying to defend them as if they showed anything.  You keep saying my belief is a theory but not only could you not find any hard evidence to dispute it, you could not even find any soft evidence to dispute it.  Its not a draw because you provided absolutely nothing to prove your point.  Your point seems to be there are leaks and by golly there is a chance one of them could have come from Mueller's team.   If this is what you consider a draw then we do not need to discuss this issue anymore.

1.  Incorrect. In your analogy I have no idea if the brakes are any good or not when I bring the vehicle in, and I'm leaving it entirely up to the garage. In mine, I know I want them changed based on the condition. There are people who aren't certified mechanics who can make this decision for themselves, and there are certified mechanics who shouldn't ever be trusted with any vehicle that travels down a highway. Just because you can't, doesn't mean someone else can't either. This applies to basically anything and everything. The reason for you to change the analogy to the way you presented it, would be based on the assumption that everything I provided was simply copy and paste, which isn't the case as I've mentioned.

2.  In your version of the analogy, the mechanic calls to let me know I'm wrong and that the brakes are fine, and yet I know based on their condition, I want them changed regardless, period. Just because that mechanic doesn't think the breaks need to be changed, doesn't mean they can't or shouldn't be changed. You mention #1, which I did say my evidence isn't completely 100% indisputable, which is why more would be needed to make backing up my claim worthwhile, so when I would ask for the 'back breaks' to be checked, based on your example, the mechanic refuses to because even though they didn't check them, their just going to assume there fine. That could very well lead to a car crash, which as per how you've been handling this, seems to be headed that way.

3.  You asked me to explain the links because you didn't agree based on what you read, but if you didn't think that's what convinced me, why would you want to know what about them convinced me enough to use them? So who's trolling? I didn't claim that, which I explained already, and you still don't seem to agree with that, so that's fine, think whatever you want. I did dispute it. I said read them all. You refuse to. That's fine. If basing your knowledge of everything is based on 50% of the whole, then good luck. I'll give a great example of what happens in those scenarios. The left only paid attention to the left, and because of it, the right has the power and Trump is President.

4.  Well considering you've made it clear your not going to read them, I guess we'll never know. Giving you the benefit of the doubt again, as generous as I am, I'll tell you if you had read them and disagreed, I would respect your decision and explain again, neither side seems to have strong enough evidence to make a case, so what's the problem with that? I do get to say that, because why else would I offer them, and you also can read some or all, agree or disagree, call me names, or heck, you could have even not bothered jumping into the conversation at all, and yet you chose to, so here we are. I don't make your choices, you do. How about the fact that kids get sent to school for a quarter of their life, only to ever require a small portion of that knowledge at best? Should everyone pull their kids out of school since their just wasting time? This is a political topic so the expectation coming into it should be that there will be a disagreement and likely it will end that way. If it doesn't and ends in agreement, or agreeing to disagree, then I'd consider that things going well.

5.  It has nothing to do with whether or not your qualified. To assume you or I were a lawyer or member of government wouldn't make much sense since not only would it be unlikely, but the odds are pretty good they would be knowledgeable enough make us both look like fools, or they would come right out and mention their basic background. What your saying is you want me, who offered you a cookbook, to admit it's a mystery novel, just because that's what you think it is, even though what I've already told you is that it is a cookbook, just not a very good one, that has a few items missing from the recipe that couldn't be added to the meal because the rules say the meal must be made a certain way?

6.  I already made the payment argument, and your side said that didn't matter, and you didn't correct them, so I'm not touching that one. I've paid attention, and yet after explaining the same thing over, in different ways, you still don't get it or just don't agree. The same seems to be true from your side. It seemed clear to me already that this was very well a scenario where we should probably agree to disagree, yet you don't seem to be able to accept anything less than you 'winning' and me 'losing', and you know where I stand on that.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/09/12/new-strzok-page-texts-reveal-others-were-leaking-like-mad-in-lead-up-to-trump-russia-probe.html

You took that the wrong way. I didn't mean Strzok and Page were leaking themselves, which isn't really clear either, I meant the leaks that led to their wrongdoings coming to light. When Mueller allows people like this to work on his team until someone else finds out what they've done and then allows the system to take care of it, you can't help but wonder when someone like Manafort would accuse Muellers team of leaking and wants to have witnesses testify, only to have Muellers team deny it and try to push it back at the very least, if not make it go away entirely, if there's something else going on whether Mueller knows it or not.

You say there aren't even rumors that his team leaked any information yet Manafort has made an allegation about just that, which is in one of my links. You can say the judge pointed out that Manafort's claim of improper conduct wasn't enough to move forward for a hearing, yet Ford has recently accused Kavanaugh of sexual assault after 30 years, with practically no evidence at all and is having a hearing set up for her asap. Being sure that Kavanaugh is innocent makes sense, but so would making sure Muellers team is operating as intended, considering the teams recent past, and that they are investigating the Russia case which seems to be aimed at the President. Neither should be given a pass.

Final-Fan said: 

Can you elaborate on what you mean by "leaks that led to their wrongdoing coming to light"?  I will freely admit I don't know all the details, but despite spending a few minutes searching I was unable to produce evidence of their texts being leaked before the DOJ released a bunch of them in December 2017.  If you could tell me what you are basing that statement on I would be grateful.  [edit:  Further searching suggests that it might be possible that the DOJ released the texts to get in front of leaks by Republicans in Congress.  If that's true, then although the texts first became known as a result of official information it was only released because they were afraid of leaks.  Is this what you meant?]  

In any case, it's wrong to imply that Mueller only removed them from the team when the texts became widely known, because of course they were pulled off the team before anyone knew anything about why they would have been removed.  They weren't fired from the FBI entirely until afterward but I think it's fair to say that's not Mueller's job anymore—do you disagree? 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Strzok

After a few minutes searching I can't find anything really legit going back far enough to prove that at the moment. Ya I know, it's wiki. I remember Hannity calling for the emails and texts to be released for legit proof, which he learned through the leaks. There are articles mentioning "we already knew about the texts" but that's not a date. The wiki talks about how Mueller kicked him in August 2017, so the leaks were already out well before then, let alone December 2017.

I said "until someone else finds out what they've done". Someone and many people, or "widely known" are not the same thing. Mueller made sure to steer clear of this after the fact. Not like he had the power to finish his career, but instead of helping where he could, he took the political route and kept his team at bay as not to make the investigation look weak. Mueller has the ability to expand his investigation beyond the initial Russia probe, but he didn't bother with this for some reason.

What are you defining as "the leaks"?  When Strzok was kicked from the investigation no one in the public had any idea why.  Are you calling it a "leak" when Mueller found out that they had texted each other inappropriately? 

You said, "I said "until someone else finds out what they've done"."  This is exactly what I'm calling into question.  Is there any reason to believe that the initial removal of Strzok from the investigation was only done after someone else found out in order to clean up the mess?  It's a question of whether the desire to clean house came from internal pressure (integrity, or more cynically reacting to potential future damage to reputation) or external pressure (reacting to ongoing damage to reputation).  Both of us have tried and failed to find evidence that this happened.  You're assuming that Mueller wouldn't have kicked him in August 2017 if the texts weren't already known about outside Mueller's team and related parties ("the leaks were already out well before then")—why are you assuming this must be the case? 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Strzok#cite_note-43

"The decision by the DOJ to publicize the private messages in December 2017 was controversial. Statements by DOJ spokeswomen revealed that some reporters had copies of the texts even before the DOJ invited the press to review them, but the DOJ did not authorize the pre-release. Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee have asked for a review of the circumstances under which the texts were leaked to select press outlets."

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/12/peter-strzok-leaked-texts-mueller-probe

That's the direct link. So it seems the known leaks were after Strzok was booted, but before they were officially released. I thought the leaks were beforehand and then Mueller did what he had to do asap, but he still did, before the leaks started. Doesn't change the fact that Mueller picked his team and when your job is to solely to follow the law, he picked at least a few rotten apples, so why should the rest be assumed to be unbiased and reliable? That's not to say they are definitely corrupt either.

In other words, it's exactly as I said before.  My earlier edit was based on what you just quoted. 

Are you now agreeing with me that your assumption that Mueller only kicked him off the team due to the bad behavior being leaked was a bad assumption, and that we have no reason to believe it is true?