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

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

3 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

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?  

😂😂😂

[Dashinka 24,513]

17 minutes ago, bcking said:

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.

If someone from outside the political establishment in Washington had been chosen I think the potential for COIs would have been lessened, but in this case they are glaring, and need to be taken into account.  If the election of Trump shows us anything it is that Washington is a cesspool and it is not just the Congress, but the agencies as well.

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

14 minutes ago, Nature Boy Flair said:

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 

Wait, what confirms the crime? Someone?

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

3 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

If someone from outside the political establishment in Washington had been chosen I think the potential for COIs would have been lessened, but in this case they are glaring, and need to be taken into account.  If the election of Trump shows us anything it is that Washington is a cesspool and it is not just the Congress, but the agencies as well.

 

 

You have guilty pleas, arrangements, a number of search warrants and the night is young.

A judge has presided over all of those actions. 

 

Still waiting for another shoe to drop. Probable Chance a Trump family member sees a guilty plea is more than 50%

[Dashinka 24,513]

Just now, Il Mango Dulce said:

 

 

You have guilty pleas, arrangements, a number of search warrants and the night is young.

A judge has presided over all of those actions. 

 

Still waiting for another shoe to drop. Probable Chance a Trump family member sees a guilty plea is more than 50%

Yep, the Mueller team is finding scum that reside in Washington, who would have guessed.  So far though none of the guilty pleas or to use your word "arrangements" are really relevant to the crime that actually initiated the investigation.  Can you help me out and remind me what crime initiated this whole investigation?

[bcking 3,157]

18 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

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?  

How do you determine whether a crime was committed? Is there one dude out there who is the "Crime guy" that can just say "Yep that's a crime" and then you move forward with an investigation? Even finding a dead body in a house doesn't confirm that a crime was committed. It could have been suicide. An investigation always starts with a suspicion of a crime. You're suspicion could be near 100% certainty because, say, you witnessed someone shoot someone. But even in that scenario it isn't clear what crime was committed until an investigation occurs. 

 

I agree it's a bit of a "chicken and egg thing", in which case the argument you originally had is moot. Investigations and crimes go hand and hand. You need an investigation to confirm that what actions were taken (or may have been taken) would constitute a crime. You need to have reasonable suspicion of a crime, but you don't need to "know" the crime is committed. You won't know a crime was committed until you have all the evidence. Makes me want to reread some Sherlock Holmes.

 

I've said this many times - None of us here, and no one in the media/news (liberal or otherwise) have enough information to answer your question ("What crime is that?"). Perhaps someone like Rod Rosenstein could answer, but I doubt he would talk about it. Mueller, similarly, hasn't said anything (as to be expected). We've never had all the information available, and we likely never will. Public knowledge does not matter here (not yet), and all we end up doing is speculating.

 

The DoJ, as well as both the House and Senate, felt that there was enough information to warrant an investigation. They all have investigations ongoing. Unless you know what they know (I sure don't), I don't really see how we can question whether or not enough information was present to warrant an investigation. Those that decide indicated that there was.

Edited December 13, 2017 by bcking

[Dashinka 24,513]

9 minutes ago, bcking said:

How do you determine whether a crime was committed? Is there one dude out there who is the "Crime guy" that can just say "Yep that's a crime" and then you move forward with an investigation?

 

Even finding a dead body in a house doesn't confirm that a crime was committed. It could have been suicide. 

 

I agree it's a bit of a "chicken and egg thing", in which case the argument you originally had is moot. Investigations and crimes go hand and hand. You need an investigation to confirm that what actions were taken (or may have been taken) would constitute a crime. You need to have reasonable suspicion of a crime, but you don't need to "know" the crime is committed. You won't know a crime was committed until you have all the evidence. Makes me want to reread some Sherlock Holmes.

 

I've said this many times - None of us here, and no one in the media/news (liberal or otherwise) have enough information to answer your question ("What crime is that?"). Perhaps someone like Rod Rosenstein could answer, but I doubt he would talk about it. Mueller, similarly, hasn't said anything (as to be expected). We've never had all the information available, and we likely never will. Public knowledge does not matter here (not yet), and all we end up doing is speculating.

 

The DoJ, as well as both the House and Senate, felt that there was enough information to warrant an investigation. They all have investigations ongoing. Unless you know what they know (I sure don't), I don't really see how we can question whether or not enough information was present to warrant an investigation. Those that decide indicated that there was.

When someone ends up dead under suspicious circumstances, when someone's property is stolen, or when someone is assaulted or battered and makes a complaint, these trigger an investigation because they could lead to prosecution of someone for a statutory crime.  You are correct, sometimes the investigation leads to the conclusion that a crime has not been committed, but all investigations are looking to answer the question as to is a specifc crime occurred.

 

As to the part that I bolded, the American people, the one's paying the tab here deserve to know if this was initiated due to a specific crime, or if the basis of the entire investigation is something driven by political opposition research?  This should be done through our Reps, but the DOJ and Rob Rosenstein, Strzok, and Oher are stonewalling.  Quite honestly, I think Mueller should have to testify to the House committee and give regular progress reports to the American people so we can see what we are getting for our money. but of course this will never happen since Mueller has been given the keys an is not accountable to anyone.

 

One further question, if you believe there was enough "evidence" (read as the Hillary paid for dossier), then wouldn't you agree there is enough evidence to investigate the Mueller team and all their potential COIs?  I think we need a special prosecutor to investigate the special prosecutor.

Edited December 13, 2017 by Bill & Katya

[bcking 3,157]

12 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

As to the part that I bolded, the American people, the one's paying the tab here deserve to know if this was initiated due to a specific crime, or if the basis of the entire investigation is something driven by political opposition research?  This should be done through our Reps, but the DOJ and Rob Rosenstein, Strzok, and Oher are stonewalling.  Quite honestly, I think Mueller should have to testify to the House committee and give regular progress reports to the American people so we can see what we are getting for our money. but of course this will never happen since Mueller has been given the keys an is not accountable to anyone.

 

One further question, if you believe there was enough "evidence" (read as the Hillary paid for dossier), then wouldn't you agree there is enough evidence to investigate the Mueller team and all their potential COIs?  I think we need a special prosecutor to investigate the special prosecutor.

My understanding (from the quote I posted from Rosenstein) was that one of the major reasons for this special counsel was entirely to separate it the investigation from the public knowledge until it was completed. Tensions are high, opinions are strong. I think it is reasonable to say that we want the investigation to be separated from that until it is finished.

 

I agree that we should have accountability, but I think it is reasonable to wait until the investigation is completed. I don't believe in the past we've had "weekly updates" or something from special counsels. Aren't they typically "closed door" until their completion?

 

As for the "basis of the entire investigation" - Do you question the basis of the investigations that both the House and the Senate are conducted? They have also said that the question of whether the Trump group was involved is still an "open question".

 

As for your last question - I don't think it's up for me to decide that. As of right now (literally right now I think?) Rosenstein just said he doesn't think an investigation into Mueller is warranted. I wouldn't claim to know more (or even the same amount) as him.

Edited December 13, 2017 by bcking

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

39 minutes ago, Il Mango Dulce said:

Wait, what confirms the crime? Someone?

I don't know . Stuff like dead bodies, broken down doors, stab wounds etc

[bcking 3,157]

5 minutes ago, Nature Boy Flair said:

I don't know . Stuff like dead bodies, broken down doors, stab wounds etc

How do you determine what those three pieces of evidence add up to?

 

Perhaps they locked themselves out, so they had to break down the door (but it was their property, so not breaking and entering). They then preceded to stab themselves and commit suicide. 

 

If only there was a way to determine for sure whether it was a crime...

 

Oh ya...an investigation

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

2 hours ago, Nature Boy Flair said:

I don't know . Stuff like dead bodies, broken down doors, stab wounds etc

None of that in white collar crimes

[jg121783 3,915]

6 hours 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

And what evidence was that?

[bcking 3,157]

1 minute ago, jg121783 said:

And what evidence was that?

You'd have to ask someone who has all information available to them.

 

Members of the House or Senate intelligence committees perhaps (since they both agreed an investigation was warrantee), or someone high up in the DoJ.

 

If you know any of those, feel free to ask. 

 

Asking here is pretty pointless. None of us have the information required to make that judgment.

[Darnell 8,478]

39 minutes ago, bcking said:

None of us have the information required to make that judgment.

But making up stuff that resembles conjecture is fun !  

[Dashinka 24,513]

6 hours ago, bcking said:

My understanding (from the quote I posted from Rosenstein) was that one of the major reasons for this special counsel was entirely to separate it the investigation from the public knowledge until it was completed. Tensions are high, opinions are strong. I think it is reasonable to say that we want the investigation to be separated from that until it is finished.

 

I agree that we should have accountability, but I think it is reasonable to wait until the investigation is completed. I don't believe in the past we've had "weekly updates" or something from special counsels. Aren't they typically "closed door" until their completion?

 

As for the "basis of the entire investigation" - Do you question the basis of the investigations that both the House and the Senate are conducted? They have also said that the question of whether the Trump group was involved is still an "open question".

 

As for your last question - I don't think it's up for me to decide that. As of right now (literally right now I think?) Rosenstein just said he doesn't think an investigation into Mueller is warranted. I wouldn't claim to know more (or even the same amount) as him.

Per your first paragragh, why then do we continue to hear “leaks” coming out of Mueller’s team?