Texts between ex-Mueller team members emerge, calling Trump 'loathsome human,' 'an idiot

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/12/12/texts-between-ex-mueller-team-members-emerge-calling-trump-loathsome-human-idiot.html

[eieio 1,594]

Sounds like an impartial guy.  Wasn't he cheating on his wife with another team member who also hated Trump. This does not surprise me at all. 

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

2 hours ago, Nature Boy Flair said:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/12/12/texts-between-ex-mueller-team-members-emerge-calling-trump-loathsome-human-idiot.html

Surveys show that when asked to sum up Trump in one word "idiot" is by far the largest winner.

[Dashinka 24,502]

2 hours ago, Il Mango Dulce said:

Surveys show that when asked to sum up Trump in one word "idiot" is by far the largest winner.

Survey shows that Washington is truely a swamp filled with biased MDL types.

[Steeleballz 7,550]

3 hours ago, Il Mango Dulce said:

Surveys show that when asked to sum up Trump in one word "idiot" is by far the largest winner.

 

   Was loathsome in second place? My impartial observation is that it could easily have been.

 

  Would everyone be required to recuse themselves for feeling that way? That could severely limit the pool of potential team members.

[Dashinka 24,502]

3 hours ago, Steeleballz said:

 

   Was loathsome in second place? My impartial observation is that it could easily have been.

 

  Would everyone be required to recuse themselves for feeling that way? That could severely limit the pool of potential team members.

Yes as it clouds their impartiality.  Mueller has his own conflicts-of-interest demons relative to his closeness to Comey, but he could have done himself a world of good if he had filled his team with lawyers and investigators from outside of Washington (hint:  the pool outside of Washington is really big).  Instead, his team is full of people who cannot even tell when their biases are showing through and have a long history of doing just about anything politically to get ahead.  As far as I am concerned anything that comes out of Mueller's investigation is potentially tainted, and I would expect any good defense attorney will be using all of this in any fight.

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

1 hour ago, Bill & Katya said:

Yes as it clouds their impartiality.  Mueller has his own conflicts-of-interest demons relative to his closeness to Comey, but he could have done himself a world of good if he had filled his team with lawyers and investigators from outside of Washington (hint:  the pool outside of Washington is really big).  Instead, his team is full of people who cannot even tell when their biases are showing through and have a long history of doing just about anything politically to get ahead.  As far as I am concerned anything that comes out of Mueller's investigation is potentially tainted, and I would expect any good defense attorney will be using all of this in any fight.

You do know the individual in question was removed from the investigation last summer don't you?

[smilesammich 10,727]

 

Quote

Later that same day, Strzok texted Page, "Ok I may vote for Trump."

[Dashinka 24,502]

5 minutes ago, Il Mango Dulce said:

You do know the individual in question was removed from the investigation last summer don't you?

I agree, this thread is about the text messages between Peter Strzok and his mistress Lisa Page, but there are many other instances of potential conflicts with the swamp people Mueller chose for his team.  However, in this case Strzok was still part of the initiation of the entire Russian collusion investigation and low and behold, he was also instrumental in the entire Hillary investigation and in writing the statements of the Hillary "exoneration".  Considering Mueller could not recognize the potential COIs with this guy says a lot about Mueller (of course, he doesn't even recognize his own COIs).

 

 

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

11 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

I agree, this thread is about the text messages between Peter Strzok and his mistress Lisa Page, but there are many other instances of potential conflicts with the swamp people Mueller chose for his team.  However, in this case Strzok was still part of the initiation of the entire Russian collusion investigation and low and behold, he was also instrumental in the entire Hillary investigation and in writing the statements of the Hillary "exoneration".  Considering Mueller could not recognize the potential COIs with this guy says a lot about Mueller (of course, he doesn't even recognize his own COIs).

 

 

Amazing, I consider myself a rational adult and I don't see conflict either.

[Dashinka 24,502]

53 minutes ago, Il Mango Dulce said:

Amazing, I consider myself a rational adult and I don't see conflict either.

Only you can answer why you don't see the conflicts.  I am still trying to understand what crime is being investigated?  Most of the time policing agencies investigate the accusation of an actual crime, but in this case it appears that the Mueller team is just trying to formulate articles of impeachment.  I do realize that Hillary losing to Trump is a crime to many of those driving in the MDL, but I guess I would still like to see an underlying crime before a full scale expensive investigation is started.  Some have said we have to investigate to determine the crime, but this is simply backward unless we plan to appoint a special prosecutor or better yet two special prosecutors at each presidential election to investigate anything by either major candidate.

[bcking 3,157]

I see a potential for conflict, but then again I'd say there is a potential for conflict of interest from ANYONE. You will never find anyone that doesn't have the potential for a conflict of interest one way or another.

 

Every person has a political opinion, that goes double for the USA I'd say. You can't expect for the FBI to ONLY hire people that have absolutely ZERO opinion on politics. There will likely be people who support our President, and those who don't support our President. BOTH of those groups would have potential conflicts of interest.

 

The important thing is whether or not they let their personal opinions change the way they do their job. You can personally hate or love Trump but still investigate in a fair way. I'm sure it's not easy, but I don't think anyone would say their job is easy.

 

I sometimes strongly disagree with the opinions of parents but it doesn't change how I treat their children. In adult medicine doctors will often STRONGLY disagree with their own patients, but they still do their best to provide the best care possible regardless of their opinions. 

 

So instead of looking for evidence of what people personally think about our President, about Clinton, or about anyone else. We need to look for evidence of how those opinions influenced their actions.

Edited December 13, 2017 by bcking

[bcking 3,157]

10 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

Only you can answer why you don't see the conflicts.  I am still trying to understand what crime is being investigated?  Most of the time policing agencies investigate the accusation of an actual crime, but in this case it appears that the Mueller team is just trying to formulate articles of impeachment.  I do realize that Hillary losing to Trump is a crime to many of those driving in the MDL, but I guess I would still like to see an underlying crime before a full scale expensive investigation is started.  Some have said we have to investigate to determine the crime, but this is simply backward unless we plan to appoint a special prosecutor or better yet two special prosecutors at each presidential election to investigate anything by either major candidate.

Investigations don't occur around crimes that have already been confirmed. If we knew there was a crime, why would we need to investigate it?

 

There was enough credible evidence that a crime may have occurred to warrant the investigation. The special counsel was then set up because the DOJ wanted the investigation to be independent. That happened many months ago. Rod Rosenstein set up the special counsel. Here is a quote from him:

 

"My decision is not a finding that crimes have been committed or that any prosecution is warranted. I have made no such determination. What I have determined is that based upon the unique circumstances the public interest requires me to place this investigation under the authority of a person who exercises a degree of independence from the normal chain of command."

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/deputy-attorney-general-appoints-special-counsel-to-oversee-probe-of-russian-interference-in-election/2017/05/17/302c1774-3b49-11e7-8854-21f359183e8c_story.html?utm_term=.0c1cc205747b

Edited December 13, 2017 by bcking

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

3 minutes ago, bcking said:

Investigations don't occur around crimes that have already been confirmed. If we knew there was a crime, why would we need to investigate it?

 

 

You could not be more wrong. Investigations happen all the time for crimes that have been confirmed. In fact there is almost never an investigation launched until someone confirms a crime has been committed 

 

Confirmed crimes trigger investigations 

[Dashinka 24,502]

9 minutes ago, bcking said:

Investigations don't occur around crimes that have already been confirmed. If we knew there was a crime, why would we need to investigate it?

 

There was enough credible evidence that a crime may have occurred to warrant the investigation. The special counsel was then set up because the DOJ wanted the investigation to be independent. That happened many months ago. Rod Rosenstein set up the special counsel. Here is a quote from him:

 

"My decision is not a finding that crimes have been committed or that any prosecution is warranted. I have made no such determination. What I have determined is that based upon the unique circumstances the public interest requires me to place this investigation under the authority of a person who exercises a degree of independence from the normal chain of command."

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/deputy-attorney-general-appoints-special-counsel-to-oversee-probe-of-russian-interference-in-election/2017/05/17/302c1774-3b49-11e7-8854-21f359183e8c_story.html?utm_term=.0c1cc205747b

You are kidding right?  With all the police I know and have worked with they generally don't go around investigating looking for a crime.  When a crime is committed, then the investigation starts to determine who to prosecute, so it is a chicken and egg thing.

 

You mentioned enough evidence existed that a crime may have occurred.  What crime is that?