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

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

46 minutes ago, smilesammich said:

 

[Steeleballz 7,550]

1 hour ago, jayjayj said:

Defense attorney for what?  I didn't realize a trial about these text messages started already.

 

 

 Ask Bill. He's the one who brought it up. You were up voting all his posts so I assumed you understood what he was saying.

Edited December 14, 2017 by Steeleballz

[Steeleballz 7,550]

1 hour ago, Nature Boy Flair said:

You mean like when OJ who was guilt as sin was set free because they tried to taint Mark F as a racist 

 

 No, that's not what I mean, but always interesting watching how you get from point A to point B.

[Dashinka 24,504]

2 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

 No, that's not what I mean, but always interesting watching how you get from point A to point B.

So you are saying that an attorney never attacks the investigators?  I think NB made it clear with his example and they did it with just a very few examples of possible racial bias against Furman.  With any cases that come out of this investigation, a lawyer will have a lot of sources of political bias from the lead investigator along with others from within the Special Prosecutors Office, the FBI and the DOJ.  As a wise person recently said, where there is smoke, there is fire.

[Steeleballz 7,550]

1 hour ago, Bill & Katya said:

So you are saying that an attorney never attacks the investigators?  I think NB made it clear with his example and they did it with just a very few examples of possible racial bias against Furman.  With any cases that come out of this investigation, a lawyer will have a lot of sources of political bias from the lead investigator along with others from within the Special Prosecutors Office, the FBI and the DOJ.  As a wise person recently said, where there is smoke, there is fire.

 

   I'll give NB credit, it was impressive to work OJ Simpson into this thread. Not everyone could have done that. I don't think anything else was clear in his example. The contention that Simpson was acquitted because Furman was racist is nonsense. If you want clarification on that, you'll have to ask NB. 

 

    At any rate, I don't see how any of this relates. Furman made racist statements, but he also perjured himself and possibly planted evidence, which were direct actions showing his conduct was biased towards the outcome. The rest of the trial was built around Furman's lack of credibility. That's a giant leap from what we were discussing here, but it goes back to what I said - it's not about personal feelings, there needs to be observable bias in the conduct of the investigation.

[Dashinka 24,504]

25 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

   I'll give NB credit, it was impressive to work OJ Simpson into this thread. Not everyone could have done that. I don't think anything else was clear in his example. The contention that Simpson was acquitted because Furman was racist is nonsense. If you want clarification on that, you'll have to ask NB. 

 

    At any rate, I don't see how any of this relates. Furman made racist statements, but he also perjured himself and possibly planted evidence, which were direct actions showing his conduct was biased towards the outcome. The rest of the trial was built around Furman's lack of credibility. That's a giant leap from what we were discussing here, but it goes back to what I said - it's not about personal feelings, there needs to be observable bias in the conduct of the investigation.

Hmm, so the planting of the dossier paid for by the Hillary campaign and looking more and more like the basis of FISA warrants to spy on Americans and start an investigation by super Spy Peter Strzok doesn’t strike you as concerning?  I guess I have a lot less faith in our government bureaucrats than you do and the faith is drained with every other wonderfully story of bias/COI that come out.  The Special Prosecutor was appointed to overcome the apparent COI of Jeff Sessions and the Trump appointees of the DOJ, and we see that the members of the special prosecutor’s team has even more COIs and we are to believe that this will all be handled by the DOJs IG, convenient.  The taint is odiferous.

Edited December 14, 2017 by Bill & Katya

[Steeleballz 7,550]

5 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

Hmm, so the planting of the dossier paid for by the Hillary campaign and looking more and more like the basis of FISA warrants to spy on Americans and start an investigation by super Spy Peter Strzok doesn’t strike you as concerning?  I guess I have a lot less faith in our government bureaucrats than you do and the faith is drained with every other wonderfully story of bias/COI that come out.  The Special Prosecutor was appointed to overcome the apparent COI of Jeff Sessions and the Trump appointees of the DOJ, and we see that the members of the special prosecutor’s team has even more COIs and we are to believe that this will all be handled by the DOJs IG, convenient.  The taint is odiferous.

 

     I never said any of it is not cause for concern. If you go by the idiom that where there is smoke, there is fire, it still follows that you have to find the fire. All you have so far is the smoke.

 

    

 

[Dashinka 24,504]

8 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

     I never said any of it is not cause for concern. If you go by the idiom that where there is smoke, there is fire, it still follows that you have to find the fire. All you have so far is the smoke.

 

    

 

Then let’s appoint another special prosecutor to find the fire that is generating this new smoke?  Isn’t that why the first one was appointed?  A lot of smoke (supposition or maybe just old fashioned butt hurt)?

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

1 hour ago, Steeleballz said:

 

   I'll give NB credit, it was impressive to work OJ Simpson into this thread. Not everyone could have done that. I don't think anything else was clear in his example. The contention that Simpson was acquitted because Furman was racist is nonsense. If you want clarification on that, you'll have to ask NB. 

 

    At any rate, I don't see how any of this relates. Furman made racist statements, but he also perjured himself and possibly planted evidence, which were direct actions showing his conduct was biased towards the outcome. The rest of the trial was built around Furman's lack of credibility. That's a giant leap from what we were discussing here, but it goes back to what I said - it's not about personal feelings, there needs to be observable bias in the conduct of the investigation.

Think you for the cred.

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

1 hour ago, Bill & Katya said:

Hmm, so the planting of the dossier paid for by the Hillary campaign and looking more and more like the basis of FISA warrants to spy on Americans and start an investigation by super Spy Peter Strzok doesn’t strike you as concerning?  I guess I have a lot less faith in our government bureaucrats than you do and the faith is drained with every other wonderfully story of bias/COI that come out.  The Special Prosecutor was appointed to overcome the apparent COI of Jeff Sessions and the Trump appointees of the DOJ, and we see that the members of the special prosecutor’s team has even more COIs and we are to believe that this will all be handled by the DOJs IG, convenient.  The taint is odiferous.

you forgot that the Washington Examiner paid for the dossier work, until Trump became the nominee

[eieio 1,594]

Only 375 or so texts have been released out of an alleged 10,000. 

 

Allowing these two texting lovebirds to be anywhere near the FBI is akin to allowing one spouse in a divorce to be the ruling judge. I am sure one side will think it was a fair judgement

[jayjayj 571]

7 hours ago, Steeleballz said:

 

     I never said any of it is not cause for concern. If you go by the idiom that where there is smoke, there is fire, it still follows that you have to find the fire. All you have so far is the smoke.

 

    

 

So you do think it is cause for concern?

[jayjayj 571]

10 hours ago, Steeleballz said:

 

 Ask Bill. He's the one who brought it up. You were up voting all his posts so I assumed you understood what he was saying.

You moved past the hypothetical when you replied directly to my post regarding the "insurance policy" that was going to be implemented by high level FBI officers if Trump won the election.  Someone involved in that conversation in "Andy" McCabe's office is going to need a defense attorney soon.

[Dashinka 24,504]

7 hours ago, Il Mango Dulce said:

you forgot that the Washington Examiner paid for the dossier work, until Trump became the nominee

But you are forgetting there is actual concrete evidence that it was the Hillary campaign that was paying a foreign agent.  

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

1 hour ago, Bill & Katya said:

But you are forgetting there is actual concrete evidence that it was the Hillary campaign that was paying a foreign agent.  

No, I am not. There is no evidence that she was even aware of the Dossier before everyone else in Jan 2017.  And if the campaign did  finance oppo research there is no legal, ethical or traditional breach here.