Page 12 of 16 FirstFirst ... 28910111213141516 LastLast
Results 166 to 180 of 230

Thread: Mueller Probe, Political Bias, And Deep State Sabotage

  1. #166 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    22,675
    Thanks
    595
    Thanked 12,388 Times in 7,999 Posts
    Groans
    16
    Groaned 809 Times in 761 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Darth Omar View Post
    Donating to a political campaign is putting money behind your opinion. That’s kind of different.

    Mueller couldn’t find some people who didn’t have money in the game? Is there a shortage of lawyers in DC so he had to take what he could get?
    Not really. Money is speech.

    To prove bias, you have to show where it occurred on the job. I asked anatta a lot about that w/ the indictments that were already announced, but he didn't have anything.

  2. The Following User Says Thank You to Cancel 2020.1 For This Post:

    Rune (12-12-2017)

  3. #167 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    43,479
    Thanks
    12,574
    Thanked 23,756 Times in 16,563 Posts
    Groans
    249
    Groaned 1,622 Times in 1,532 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Thing1 View Post
    Not really. Money is speech.

    To prove bias, you have to show where it occurred on the job. I asked anatta a lot about that w/ the indictments that were already announced, but he didn't have anything.
    nothing is between your ears..
    It is absolutely a worthless conversation going over the far -ranging Mueller Fishing Expedition
    ,or the fired/disciplined corrupt investigators with you

    The reason for an SC is the DoJ can't be trusted to be unbiased-that's how it was sold

  4. #168 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    22,675
    Thanks
    595
    Thanked 12,388 Times in 7,999 Posts
    Groans
    16
    Groaned 809 Times in 761 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by noise View Post
    nothing is between your ears..
    It is absolutely a worthless conversation going over the far -ranging Mueller Fishing Expedition
    ,or the fired/disciplined corrupt investigators with you

    The reason for an SC is the DoJ can't be trusted to be unbiased-that's how it was sold
    You said nothing w/ this post.

    You are STILL unable to show anything about the indictments that reveals bias.

  5. #169 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Posts
    49,883
    Thanks
    14,463
    Thanked 32,101 Times in 21,165 Posts
    Groans
    6
    Groaned 1,307 Times in 1,235 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Thing1 View Post
    Not really. Money is speech.

    To prove bias, you have to show where it occurred on the job. I asked anatta a lot about that w/ the indictments that were already announced, but he didn't have anything.
    You’re trying to make a point about free speech when this has nothing to do with that.

    Lawyers are free to donate to campaigns all they want but they have no ‘constitutional right’ to serve in political investigations. And when they hear the words ‘sorry, but your donation to the Hillary campaign disqualifies you from the job’, their constitutional rights aren’t violated in any form or fashion.

    As I mentioned the other day, Mueller allowed biased individuals on his team. It’s just a fact. And he did so knowing that avoiding ‘even the appearance of bias’ was the legal and ethical bar he needed to clear in his investigation. So much for Mueller’s supposed ethical standards.

    And it raises the question of ‘why’?

    The revelation about Strzok only confirms the suspicions that were raised when Mueller appointed Clinton donors back in the Spring.

    And indeed, if it quacks, it’s a duck.
    Coup has started. First of many steps. Impeachment will follow ultimately~WB attorney Mark Zaid, January 2017

  6. #170 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    22,675
    Thanks
    595
    Thanked 12,388 Times in 7,999 Posts
    Groans
    16
    Groaned 809 Times in 761 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Darth Omar View Post
    You’re trying to make a point about free speech when this has nothing to do with that.

    Lawyers are free to donate to campaigns all they want but they have no ‘constitutional right’ to serve in political investigations. And when they hear the words ‘sorry, but your donation to the Hillary campaign disqualifies you from the job’, their constitutional rights aren’t violated in any form or fashion.

    As I mentioned the other day, Mueller allowed biased individuals on his team. It’s just a fact. And he did so knowing that avoiding ‘even the appearance of bias’ was the legal and ethical bar he needed to clear in his investigation. So much for Mueller’s supposed ethical standards.

    And it raises the question of ‘why’?

    The revelation about Strzok only confirms the suspicions that were raised when Mueller appointed Clinton donors back in the Spring.

    And indeed, if it quacks, it’s a duck.
    When you say he allowed biased people on his team, do you mean people with strong opinions?

  7. #171 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    43,479
    Thanks
    12,574
    Thanked 23,756 Times in 16,563 Posts
    Groans
    249
    Groaned 1,622 Times in 1,532 Posts

    Default

    FFS

    Big Dem donors. those with conflicts of interests..do you see any Trump donors on the Mueller team? why is that?

  8. The Following User Says Thank You to dukkha For This Post:

    Darth Omar (12-11-2017)

  9. #172 | Top
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    28,583
    Thanks
    10,247
    Thanked 13,294 Times in 8,007 Posts
    Groans
    12
    Groaned 1,132 Times in 1,059 Posts
    Blog Entries
    10

    Default

    The Trump-Russia Probe Is About to Get Uglier
    Unpleasant facts are spilling out. Republicans don't want to know them.
    12/10/2017

    Here are two certainties about the Trump-Russia investigation. It won't end soon. It will get uglier.

    A new shoe drops almost daily in special counsel Robert Mueller's probe. First, Former national security adviser Michael Flynn pleaded guilty to lying and agreed to cooperate. Then the White House changed its story (again) on what President Donald Trump knew after he was first advised in January that Flynn posed security problems.

    Last week came news that Mueller had subpoenaed financial records from Deutsche Bank pertaining to people affiliated with Trump. Then Donald Trump Jr. said he wouldn't tell Congress about his dad's 2016 conversations with a Kremlin-linked Russian lawyer, invoking a dubious claim of attorney-client privilege.

    This is not a saga in its closing chapter.

    Equally clear is that no matter what is revealed, Trump and his allies won't go quietly. Already, some congressional Republicans are trying to smear Mueller, the most experienced and respected special counsel in more than 40 years. If cornered, does anyone doubt that Trump will summon his core supporters to the streets?

    The constant revelations create such a blur that context sometimes is overlooked. Trump and his operatives have lied repeatedly, denying that they had any contacts with Russians. Now we now know of at least 19 meetings among 31 interactions.

    There are three avenues Mueller is exploring. Did the Trump team aid and abet the Russian efforts to hack and steal e-mails with an eye toward influencing with the U.S. presidential election? Did the president try to obstruct the investigation into those efforts? What was the nature of any financial arrangements Trump may have had with Russians linked to the Kremlin? Many of the Trump defenses seem to be unraveling.

    U.S. intelligence agencies have reported "with high confidence" that the Russian government was behind break-ins to the email accounts of Democratic operatives during the 2016 presidential campaign as part of a campaign to "undermine public faith in the U.S. democratic process" and harm Hillary Clinton's "electability and potential presidency." In a January report, the agencies said that Russian President Vladimir Putin and his government "developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump."

    The question now is whether Trump or his team knew about this and facilitated the dissemination of the stolen material through WikiLeaks and other sources. The secrecy and contradictory accounts of their communications with Russian sources undercuts their repeated claims that their contacts were innocent.

    By last week, Trump opponents were taking to public forums to talk about the evidence supporting an obstruction-of-justice case against Trump himself. That's based on a chain of events involving Trump's effort to pressure James Comey to drop the Russia probe and then firing him as director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation when he didn't.

    News organizations have also reported that Trump tried to influence other key officials to curtail investigations, including National Intelligence Director Dan Coats, National Security Agency director Admiral Mike Rogers and House Intelligence Committee chair Richard Burr. Coats and the others have avoided commenting directly on these accounts, which nevertheless appear to worry the White House enough to produce a claim last week by Trump's personal lawyer, John Dowd, that a president can never be guilty of obstruction because he is the chief law-enforcement officer under the Constitution.

    That drew scornful responses from legal scholars and even some pushback from the White House lawyer handling the Russia case. As well it should; obstruction was the central impeachment charge against Presidents Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton.

    Duke University law professor Samuel Buell, a former prosecutor, wrote in July that "it is highly likely that special counsel Robert Mueller will find that there is a provable case that the president committed a felony offense," namely obstruction.

    And that's keeping in mind an important reminder from Bill Ruckelshaus, a former acting FBI director who was a hero of Watergate when he quit Nixon's Justice Department in 1973 rather than following an order to impede the investigation of that landmark case. What's publicly known about inquiries like this one, he told me in June, is just a little of what's actually happening.

    There is, for example, evidence that Mueller has expanded his investigation to look at financial deals involving Trump family interests.

    Robert Anderson, a top counterintelligence and cybersecurity aide to Mueller when the latter was FBI director from 2001 to 2013, wrote in Time last month that Mueller "appears to have uncovered details of a far-reaching Russian political-influence campaign." Anderson predicted that the conspiracy would prove to involve wire fraud, mail fraud and moving money around illicitly between countries. He said more informants are likely to emerge, and declared, "When the people who may be cooperating with the investigation start consensually recording conversations, it's all over."
    https://www.bloomberg.com/view/artic...-to-get-uglier
    AMERICAN HISTORY ITSELF IS A TESTAMENT TO THE STRENGTH AND RESILIENCE OF AFRICAN PEOPLE. WE, ALONG WITH THE COURGE AND SACRIFICES OF CONSCIOUS WHITE AMERICANS, LIKE VIOLA LIUZZO, EVERETT DIRKSEN, AND MANY OTHERS, HAVE FOUGHT AND DIED TOGETHER FOR OUR FREEDOM, AND FOR OUR SURVIVAL.

    In America, rights are are not determined by what is just, fair, equitable, honest, nor by what Jesus would do. Rights are determined ONLY by what you can DEMAND.

  10. #173 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    22,675
    Thanks
    595
    Thanked 12,388 Times in 7,999 Posts
    Groans
    16
    Groaned 809 Times in 761 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by noise View Post
    FFS

    Big Dem donors. those with conflicts of interests..do you see any Trump donors on the Mueller team? why is that?
    I don't know the donation history of everyone.

    Again - to show bias, you have to show bias. You have your chance w/ the indictments - if those were biased, you should be able to present where the evidence was faulty or misrepresented.

  11. The Following User Says Thank You to Cancel 2020.1 For This Post:

    Rune (12-12-2017)

  12. #174 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Posts
    49,883
    Thanks
    14,463
    Thanked 32,101 Times in 21,165 Posts
    Groans
    6
    Groaned 1,307 Times in 1,235 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Thing1 View Post
    I don't know the donation history of everyone.

    Again - to show bias, you have to show bias. You have your chance w/ the indictments - if those were biased, you should be able to present where the evidence was faulty or misrepresented.
    Huh?

    The indictments are a separate issue. Actually, check that. Mueller may have given Flynn’s lawyers an out by allowing *a deeply partisan* investigator handle Flynn’s case. If and when Flynn has his day in court it’s going to come up and if Flynn’s charges are dismissed, you can blame Robert Mueller.

    Which again, points to why Mueller shouldn’t have allowed demonstrably biased individuals [a polite term for partisan hacks] to take part in his investigation.

    Why do you think he did?
    Coup has started. First of many steps. Impeachment will follow ultimately~WB attorney Mark Zaid, January 2017

  13. The Following User Says Thank You to Darth Omar For This Post:

    Stretch (12-11-2017)

  14. #175 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    93,650
    Thanks
    9,766
    Thanked 33,619 Times in 21,482 Posts
    Groans
    290
    Groaned 5,632 Times in 5,140 Posts
    Blog Entries
    5

    Default

    You silly people think only Tump voters should be allowed to investigate?
    4,487

    18 U.S. Code § 2071 - Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally
    44 U.S.C. 2202 - The United States shall reserve and retain complete ownership, possession, and control of Presidential records; and such records shall be administered in accordance with the provisions of this chapter.


    LOCK HIM UP!

  15. The Following User Says Thank You to Jarod For This Post:

    blackascoal (12-11-2017)

  16. #176 | Top
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    4,104
    Thanks
    18
    Thanked 806 Times in 671 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 326 Times in 306 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jarod View Post
    Ha ha Ha ha ha, your paranoid fake news frenzy betrays Your attemp to hide fear.

    You could replace motor five more times, the probe will come to the same conclusion.
    Your lack of a valid rebuttal tells it all, everything I just posted is verifiable fact you laughable fuck.

  17. The Following User Says Thank You to PraiseKek For This Post:

    Truth Detector (12-15-2017)

  18. #177 | Top
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    4,104
    Thanks
    18
    Thanked 806 Times in 671 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 326 Times in 306 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jarod View Post
    You silly people think only Tump voters should be allowed to investigate?
    No republican donors are on Muellers team but there are several DNC donors and now as we have found they are rabid partisans, that's the whole point you laughable fuck.

  19. The Following User Says Thank You to PraiseKek For This Post:

    Truth Detector (12-15-2017)

  20. #178 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    93,650
    Thanks
    9,766
    Thanked 33,619 Times in 21,482 Posts
    Groans
    290
    Groaned 5,632 Times in 5,140 Posts
    Blog Entries
    5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PraiseKek View Post
    No republican donors are on Muellers team but there are several DNC donors and now as we have found they are rabid partisans, that's the whole point you laughable fuck.
    Cite?
    4,487

    18 U.S. Code § 2071 - Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally
    44 U.S.C. 2202 - The United States shall reserve and retain complete ownership, possession, and control of Presidential records; and such records shall be administered in accordance with the provisions of this chapter.


    LOCK HIM UP!

  21. The Following User Says Thank You to Jarod For This Post:

    Rune (12-12-2017)

  22. #179 | Top
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    4,104
    Thanks
    18
    Thanked 806 Times in 671 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 326 Times in 306 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by blackascoal View Post
    The Trump-Russia Probe Is About to Get Uglier
    Unpleasant facts are spilling out. Republicans don't want to know them.
    12/10/2017

    Here are two certainties about the Trump-Russia investigation. It won't end soon. It will get uglier.

    A new shoe drops almost daily in special counsel Robert Mueller's probe. First, Former national security adviser Michael Flynn pleaded guilty to lying and agreed to cooperate. Then the White House changed its story (again) on what President Donald Trump knew after he was first advised in January that Flynn posed security problems.

    Last week came news that Mueller had subpoenaed financial records from Deutsche Bank pertaining to people affiliated with Trump.
    That news came through Bloomberg and that news was fake, they had to retract their original claim that they subpoenaed Trump's records and then using the same debunked single anonymous source changed it to Trump affiliates, fucking laughably fake news.

  23. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to PraiseKek For This Post:

    Stretch (12-11-2017), Truth Detector (12-15-2017)

  24. #180 | Top
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    4,104
    Thanks
    18
    Thanked 806 Times in 671 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 326 Times in 306 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jarod View Post
    Cite?

    Weissman praising the Obama holdover Yates for violating a lawful order:

    Mueller attorney praised Yates as DOJ official, email shows

    http://www.cnn.com/2017/12/05/politi...tes/index.html

    The emails between Lisa Page and Peter Strzok (both on the Mueller team were so inflammatory that they were fired:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...seen-time.html

    Then we have Jeannie Rhee who represented the Clinton Foundation, represented Clinton herself during the email scandal, and defended Ben Rhodes:

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017...questions.html

    The Mueller investigation has zero credibility and is itself under Congressional investigation and under investigation by the DOJ Inspector General.

  25. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to PraiseKek For This Post:

    Stretch (12-11-2017), Truth Detector (12-15-2017)

Similar Threads

  1. Fritt-ering away: Podesta exec quits amid Mueller probe
    By Русский агент in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 11-10-2017, 09:04 PM
  2. Tony Podesta stepping down from lobbying giant amid Mueller probe
    By BRUTALITOPS in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 10-30-2017, 02:32 PM
  3. Robert Mueller is ‘going for the kill’ on Trump-Russia probe: report
    By floridafan in forum General Politics Forum
    Replies: 39
    Last Post: 10-30-2017, 11:02 AM
  4. The Mueller probe is a nothing burger?
    By Jarod in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 43
    Last Post: 08-06-2017, 10:51 AM
  5. Replies: 142
    Last Post: 05-18-2017, 09:46 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •