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

[bcking 3,157]

11 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

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

The reason it was created doesn't change as a result of the outcome, or intermediary events.

 

It was created to have an independent group outside of the DoJ responsible for the investigation. I already quoted Rod Rosenstein's own words.

 

As to "why" there are leaks? I have no idea. There shouldn't be leaks, and I don't really put that much stock in them. If they are real leaks hopefully there is an effort to plug them. It undermines what the are trying to do.

 

I agree with the original premise. We should let the investigation run it's course. There shouldn't be outside involvement. Mueller was selected, and his appointment was well supported. Let him and his group do their job, like we usually do with these special counsels (at least from my impression we usually do that). Feel free to argue or be upset when Mueller actually makes a statement. Bring up arguments about impartiality if you want. But we need to wait for their conclusion. 

 

At this point it's all conjecture. It's a waste of time.

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

4 hours ago, Darnell said:

But making up stuff that resembles conjecture is fun !  

Wow look who is back. Hey dude 

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

I wonder if they needed to investigate the recent Las Vegas massacre to determine a crime had occurred 

[X Factor 1,112]

2 hours ago, Nature Boy Flair said:

Wow look who is back. Hey dude 

He has been lurking for some time now

[Dashinka 24,502]

13 hours ago, bcking said:

The reason it was created doesn't change as a result of the outcome, or intermediary events.

 

It was created to have an independent group outside of the DoJ responsible for the investigation. I already quoted Rod Rosenstein's own words.

 

As to "why" there are leaks? I have no idea. There shouldn't be leaks, and I don't really put that much stock in them. If they are real leaks hopefully there is an effort to plug them. It undermines what the are trying to do.

 

I agree with the original premise. We should let the investigation run it's course. There shouldn't be outside involvement. Mueller was selected, and his appointment was well supported. Let him and his group do their job, like we usually do with these special counsels (at least from my impression we usually do that). Feel free to argue or be upset when Mueller actually makes a statement. Bring up arguments about impartiality if you want. But we need to wait for their conclusion. 

 

At this point it's all conjecture. It's a waste of time.

Actually on this I agree, let’s keep the investigation going since the information coming out is much more damaging to the former administration, Hillary’s campaign, and the the deep state.  Rosenstein can say whatever he wants, but I imagine the folks at the DOJ are back in the office struggling with how bad this is going to look regarding the DOJ and FBI as the news continues to trickle out.

 

As to the house and Senate investigations, I agree these were started under similar premises, but they are shifting as the news of actual crimes are uncovered.  They (at least what I heard from the House) are also calling for another special prosecutor to investigate the DOJ/FBI which seems prudent considering the COIs being exposed.

[Steeleballz 7,550]

On 12/13/2017 at 5:16 AM, 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.

 

   Legally there has to be more than that. An attorney may raise the issue, but that's not the same as proving it. It would have to be shown that it affected their judgement, or caused some other observable bias in the outcome. 

[Dashinka 24,502]

1 minute ago, Steeleballz said:

 

   Legally there has to be more than that. An attorney may raise the issue, but that's not the same as proving it. It would have to be shown that it affected their judgement, or caused some other observable bias in the outcome. 

It’s politics and it’s Washington, it won’t be hard to prove.  If you go through the Strzok text that were released so far, it seems pretty clear that he had a knack for bias and all a defense attorney needs to do is inject reasonable doubt.  

[jayjayj 571]

On 12/13/2017 at 5:52 PM, Il Mango Dulce said:

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

You aren't rational if you don't see a conflict there.  

[jayjayj 571]

On 12/13/2017 at 7:01 PM, 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.

I agree.  The text message about the "insurance policy" is alarming though.  It warrants further investigation.  

[jayjayj 571]

On 12/13/2017 at 7:32 PM, 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%

Doubtful, unless you have some insider knowledge.  If you do, please share it with us.

[jayjayj 571]

16 hours ago, Nature Boy Flair said:

Wow look who is back. Hey dude 

I just thought the same thing when I saw that post.  

[jayjayj 571]

3 hours ago, Steeleballz said:

 

   Legally there has to be more than that. An attorney may raise the issue, but that's not the same as proving it. It would have to be shown that it affected their judgement, or caused some other observable bias in the outcome. 

How about texting your anti-Trump lover that the "insurance policy" you discussed with "Andy" (McCabe) in his office might have to be initiated if Trump wins the election?  Would that show that their judgement might have been affected?  AHAHA

[Dashinka 24,502]

4 minutes ago, jayjayj said:

How about texting your anti-Trump lover that the "insurance policy" you discussed with "Andy" (McCabe) in his office might have to be initiated if Trump wins the election?  Would that show that their judgement might have been affected?  AHAHA

One wonders if he was speaking of the dossier the Hillary campaign funded through a foreign agent?

[Steeleballz 7,550]

11 minutes ago, jayjayj said:

How about texting your anti-Trump lover that the "insurance policy" you discussed with "Andy" (McCabe) in his office might have to be initiated if Trump wins the election?  Would that show that their judgement might have been affected?  AHAHA

 

  No. If you have to extrapolate that someones judgement in an investigation was affected from a text they sent prior to that investigation occuring, you are missing the "reasonable" part of reasonable doubt. Personal dislike and the thought that someone's judgement "might" have been affected may get you dismissed from jury duty, but a defense attorney (in the hypothetical case Bill is imagining) better have more than that.

[jayjayj 571]

4 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

  No. If you have to extrapolate that someones judgement in an investigation was affected from a text they sent prior to that investigation occuring, you are missing the "reasonable" part of reasonable doubt. Personal dislike and the thought that someone's judgement "might" have been affected may get you dismissed from jury duty, but a defense attorney (in the hypothetical case Bill is imagining) better have more than that.

Wrong on so many levels.

 

So showing bias prior to being assigned to an investigation doesn't concern you at all?  Your going to dismiss it in this case based on your political biases?  You aren't addressing the elephant in the room though.  What was the "insurance policy" that was going to be implemented if Trump won the election?  

Edited December 14, 2017 by jayjayj