Julio3000
<B>A Chip Off the Old Rock</B>
thethe: how can you lefties ignore the leaks!!!?
thethe +24 hours: look at these amazing stories about DoJ and HSCI investigations that materialized on the internet with no obvious place of origin!!!
Russia Collusion Scandal (aka A Leftist fantasy)
- Thread starter Runnin
- Start date
thethe: how can you lefties ignore the leaks!!!?
thethe +24 hours: look at these amazing stories about DoJ and HSCI investigations that materialized on the internet with no obvious place of origin!!!
Still want to defend that talk about campaign contributions not signalling potential bias?
Julio3000
<B>A Chip Off the Old Rock</B>
My reaction, thus far, is to ask how having Peter Strzok in harness has compromised the investigation beyond offering the obvious foothold for complaints of the nature of yours.
That's significant enough for him to get dropped from the investigation, apparently But tell me: what do you think he actually DID? Sprinkle some crack on 'em?
Julio3000
<B>A Chip Off the Old Rock</B>
I mean, only if you like the first amendment.
He is the man conducting interviews. The nature of that role allows the interrogator significant influence over the direction of the discussion. How can you not see that?
The problem? We don't have any transcript of interviews. WE HAVE NO CLUE WHAT HAPPENED! There is a good reason for that.
You are conflating two completely different things. Anyone has the freedom to make a campaign contribution. However, it should be considered in the decision on whether or not you should be on such a high profile case with historic ramifications. This is not a high bar to set for the importance of this case.
[tw]940797491338993664[/tw]
This man is showing the will to do something about his extreme bias.
No wonder he was fired from the team. Even Mueller can see what happened. Sucks for him because I'm sure he is doing his best to get to the bottom of what happened.
This man is showing the will to do something about his extreme bias.
No wonder he was fired from the team. Even Mueller can see what happened. Sucks for him because I'm sure he is doing his best to get to the bottom of what happened.
Julio3000
<B>A Chip Off the Old Rock</B>
Seriously, step away from your obvious passion about this issue and think about it. Career civil servants cannot be reasonably expected not to have political opinions. They ARE expected to firewall them from the discharge of their duties. Like I mentioned earlier, political affiliations and donations are not allowed to be considered in hiring or promotion...this is precisely to AVOID stacking civil service positions with people whom you know are wearing your jersey.
I'm just not sure what your pretzel logic is suggesting. That Mueller should have vetted his team for private political opinions? That he should have preferentially hired Trump supporters? I don't see how either of those things would be better. I think it's fair to ask where legitimate conflicts of interest may exist, but per DoJ guidelines, political donations are not considered a conflict. So, to answer your question in a short sentence: yes, I absolutely do.
So what you know is that Peter Strzok doesn't like Trump. Ok. What you don't know and are only rabidly speculating about is how, exactly, his personal political bias affected the investigation. What I see is a whole lot of hand-waving and a reluctance to confront the fact that one guy with a political opinion didn't fabricate this entire thing.
Oh I don't think he has much of an impact on the collusion case other than entrapping Flynn. What he really could have and probably did was influence the Clinton email investigstion. Deep down I know you realize that. You're way to intelligent to not even consider it a possibility.
Julio3000
<B>A Chip Off the Old Rock</B>
Asked and answered.
If the law is on your side, pound the law. If the facts are on your side, pound the facts. If neither the law nor the facts are on your side, pound the table.
Julio3000
<B>A Chip Off the Old Rock</B>
So why are we talking about him wrt the Trump investigation, which he's apparently been canned from since July?
As for whether his personal inclinations affected his actions during the Hillery investigation, perhaps they did. I certainly don't know, and nothing you've presented compellingly makes a case for it, particularly if you consider that he was not acting in a vacuum with no oversight, able to make final determinations on a whim.
So your takeaway from these messages is "Nothing to see here"? I just want to make sure I understand your stance at this timr.
At this very moment I'm not concerned about Trump being inpeaxhed. I could be way off but I don't think Mueller has found anything to infer collusion.
However, I still believe something dirty is happening. Call it globaists. Call it deep state. Call it whatever you want but it's there and we are learning more about it every day
http://www.cnn.com/2017/12/12/politics/peter-strzok-texts-released/index.html
Later in a text from August 15, 2016, Strzok tells Page: "I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy's office" -- an apparent reference to Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe -- "that there's no way he gets elected -- but I'm afraid we can't take that risk. It's like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you're 40 . . . . " Page does not appear to have responded, according to records reviewed by CNN.
Yeah - Say goodbye to this probe. Who would have guessed this?
Please. Someone defend this.
Later in a text from August 15, 2016, Strzok tells Page: "I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy's office" -- an apparent reference to Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe -- "that there's no way he gets elected -- but I'm afraid we can't take that risk. It's like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you're 40 . . . . " Page does not appear to have responded, according to records reviewed by CNN.
Yeah - Say goodbye to this probe. Who would have guessed this?
Please. Someone defend this.
https://www.politico.com/story/2017/12/12/justice-mueller-ethics-waiver-russia-291707
Does this matter? Who did the waiver benefit here?
Does this matter? Who did the waiver benefit here?
bravesnumberone
Well-known member
I'm willing to accept the results of an investigation into whether the investigation team has reached conclusions through bias and fabricated charges. Are you one way or the other?
I assure you. That investigation is under way and we will find out. You know how I feel already and lots of reasons for me to come to that conclusion.
Even more suspicious is that the fbi was sitting on this after repeated requests from congress. What else are they hiding?
bravesnumberone
Well-known member
Equally suspicious is that the Justice Department releases these in the middle of an investigation right as indictments start coming down.
At this point anything is possible.
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
I would submit there is a significant difference between an inquisition where the views of the interrogator determine the course of the proceedings and a professional investigation done by legal professionals. The people in the latter will certainly have their views and biases. But the institutional and procedural arrangements are designed to promote a fair investigation in spite of any biases by the parties conducting the investigation.
It is worth keeping in mind that any investigation is conducted by human beings and as such is potentially flawed. Over many decades we have evolved practices to overcome those inherent flaws and minimize them. But they will never be completely eliminated. If someone wanted to undermine the legitimacy of any investigation I'm sure they could find something to work with.
And yes anything is possible. But I don't know what follows from that. I know what some would like to follow from that. But they should be careful about what they wish for.