GAME CHANGER: FISA Memo To END Mueller’s Russia Investigation Into Trump, Sources Say

[Dashinka 24,786]

14 hours ago, bcking said:

Of course if we set up a Special Investigation it can't be run by anyone with any history with the FBI, the DOJ, or pretty much any government organization. Otherwise they could be tainted.

 

So we need someone with zero experience. Maybe we can give it to, let's see....Ben Carson? Jared Kushner? Kellyanne? 

The FSB?

 

 

Seriously, I agree, it would have to be someone with little inside Washington experience.  They might be able to find a former state AG to do it.

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

I know who could do it.

 

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

30 minutes ago, Nature Boy Flair said:

I know who could do it.

 

Matthew McConaughey?

[bcking 3,157]

3 hours ago, Bill & Katya said:

The FSB?

 

 

Seriously, I agree, it would have to be someone with little inside Washington experience.  They might be able to find a former state AG to do it.

As long as they actually have some credentials. The Former State AG sounds great...but what if they are tainted? You can never know how deep the swamp goes...

 

There has been a lot of recent tendencies to appoint people to positions that they have no experience in. I get it we want to minimize bias and the potential for conflicts of interest...but that has to be balanced with someone who is actually well versed and skilled at the job you are setting in front of them.

 

[Dashinka 24,786]

3 minutes ago, bcking said:

As long as they actually have some credentials. The Former State AG sounds great...but what if they are tainted? You can never know how deep the swamp goes...

 

There has been a lot of recent tendencies to appoint people to positions that they have no experience in. I get it we want to minimize bias and the potential for conflicts of interest...but that has to be balanced with someone who is actually well versed and skilled at the job you are setting in front of them.

 

I would hope that we could find one former state AG that isn't in bed with Washington.  Personally, I think it was a big mistake to appoint Mueller to his current position.  Too many close ties to Washington that could be looked at as conflicts of interest.  Sure, he has such a stellar reputation, but in my opinion, if he ignores the COIs that look quite blatant, that tarnishes his effectiveness.

[bcking 3,157]

35 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

I would hope that we could find one former state AG that isn't in bed with Washington.  Personally, I think it was a big mistake to appoint Mueller to his current position.  Too many close ties to Washington that could be looked at as conflicts of interest.  Sure, he has such a stellar reputation, but in my opinion, if he ignores the COIs that look quite blatant, that tarnishes his effectiveness.

I actually think it would be harder than you think. How do you define "in bed with Washington"? Any career civil servant lawyer is going to have connections and ties if you look hard enough. What about a former state AG with ties to a former governor, who is now a senator etc etc etc... You can find all sorts of connections.

 

I reserve all judgement on Mueller until the investigation actually completes. I hate how much the media talks about the investigation (Either for or against) when the reality is he has said essentially nothing (that I've been aware of).

 

As you've said he has a stellar reputation, and on paper he was a great pick. It is reasonable to look for someone with the experience and so that will naturally lead to people with "ties to Washington". That doesn't need to automatically be a bad thing. I think it's sad that we essentially now assume that any connection means you automatically have conflicts that you will act on. While difficult, a career FBI man should be able to put aside his "ties" and "connections" and investigate in a neutral way. Or at least as neutral as we could expect from any human being. No one will ever be 100% neutral. I'm not saying he isn't biased though, for that I go back to my first sentence. The investigation is on-going and I wouldn't make any judgments on how well/impartially he investigated until he actually provides his report. 

Edited January 23, 2018 by bcking

[TBoneTX 46,113]

Get the Mossad (Israel) to do it.

---

Agents from the KGB, the FBI, and the Mossad were arguing about which of their agencies was most efficient.

They agreed to hold a contest.  They would stand at the edge of the forest and go in, in turn.  Whichever agent brought out a deer the soonest would be deemed most efficient.

 

The KGB agent went first.  Two hours later, sweating and grunting, he dragged a live deer from the forest.

The FBI agent went next.  One hour later, sweating and grunting, he dragged a live deer from the forest.

The Mossad agent went last.  Ten minutes later, he came out carrying a live rabbit.

"That's not a deer -- that's a rabbit!" said the others.

"Ah," said the Mossad agent.  "But it confessed."

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

23 minutes ago, TBoneTX said:

Get the Mossad (Israel) to do it.

---

Agents from the KGB, the FBI, and the Mossad were arguing about which of their agencies was most efficient.

They agreed to hold a contest.  They would stand at the edge of the forest and go in, in turn.  Whichever agent brought out a deer the soonest would be deemed most efficient.

 

The KGB agent went first.  Two hours later, sweating and grunting, he dragged a live deer from the forest.

The FBI agent went next.  One hour later, sweating and grunting, he dragged a live deer from the forest.

The Mossad agent went last.  Ten minutes later, he came out carrying a live rabbit.

"That's not a deer -- that's a rabbit!" said the others.

"Ah," said the Mossad agent.  "But it confessed."

getting better 

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

10 hours ago, TBoneTX said:

Get the Mossad (Israel) to do it.

---

Agents from the KGB, the FBI, and the Mossad were arguing about which of their agencies was most efficient.

They agreed to hold a contest.  They would stand at the edge of the forest and go in, in turn.  Whichever agent brought out a deer the soonest would be deemed most efficient.

 

The KGB agent went first.  Two hours later, sweating and grunting, he dragged a live deer from the forest.

The FBI agent went next.  One hour later, sweating and grunting, he dragged a live deer from the forest.

The Mossad agent went last.  Ten minutes later, he came out carrying a live rabbit.

"That's not a deer -- that's a rabbit!" said the others.

"Ah," said the Mossad agent.  "But it confessed."

I don’t get it.  To what did the rabbit confess?

[TBoneTX 46,113]

(Oh, deer me...)

[Dashinka 24,786]

22 hours ago, bcking said:

I actually think it would be harder than you think. How do you define "in bed with Washington"? Any career civil servant lawyer is going to have connections and ties if you look hard enough. What about a former state AG with ties to a former governor, who is now a senator etc etc etc... You can find all sorts of connections.

 

I reserve all judgement on Mueller until the investigation actually completes. I hate how much the media talks about the investigation (Either for or against) when the reality is he has said essentially nothing (that I've been aware of).

 

As you've said he has a stellar reputation, and on paper he was a great pick. It is reasonable to look for someone with the experience and so that will naturally lead to people with "ties to Washington". That doesn't need to automatically be a bad thing. I think it's sad that we essentially now assume that any connection means you automatically have conflicts that you will act on. While difficult, a career FBI man should be able to put aside his "ties" and "connections" and investigate in a neutral way. Or at least as neutral as we could expect from any human being. No one will ever be 100% neutral. I'm not saying he isn't biased though, for that I go back to my first sentence. The investigation is on-going and I wouldn't make any judgments on how well/impartially he investigated until he actually provides his report. 

You have to wonder why the media is talking about it as well as the information that appears to be leaking out of it.  Doesn't seem top notch from my perspective.

[bcking 3,157]

46 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

You have to wonder why the media is talking about it as well as the information that appears to be leaking out of it.  Doesn't seem top notch from my perspective.

Of course the media is talking about it either because A. They want to paint it as bad for the President or B. They want to paint it as ineffective, corrupt, and misguided....take your pick depending on the point of view of the newspaper/author of the article. Sadly we are living in a world where there are really very few (if any) unbiased newspapers these days. I'm not saying we ever had it perfect, but I do believe it was at least better in the past.

 

I wonder very little about the investigation. I merely wait to hear the report. I think reporting on the leaks, or what may or may not be going on is pointless regardless of whether you want it to be damning to the President, or if you want it to vindicate the President. The media and the public are not privy to enough of the information to make judgments, even with leaks.

[Dashinka 24,786]

5 minutes ago, bcking said:

Of course the media is talking about it either because A. They want to paint it as bad for the President or B. They want to paint it as ineffective, corrupt, and misguided....take your pick depending on the point of view of the newspaper/author of the article. Sadly we are living in a world where there are really very few (if any) unbiased newspapers these days. I'm not saying we ever had it perfect, but I do believe it was at least better in the past.

 

I wonder very little about the investigation. I merely wait to hear the report. I think reporting on the leaks, or what may or may not be going on is pointless regardless of whether you want it to be damning to the President, or if you want it to vindicate the President. The media and the public are not privy to enough of the information to make judgments, even with leaks.

I agree, one side is biased one way and the other side is biased the other way.  It does seem strange though, for the longest time we have been told there is only biased MDR media.  Btw, I think we are living in the age where there are no unbiased media sources.

 

Personally, I am much more interested in the report from the DOJ IG as I would like to see what our government has been doing.  The whole Mueller thing seems to have started as an off-shoot of the Russian narrative which was immediately pushed right after Trump won by the Left biased media.  Also, the DOJ IG's investigation appears so far to be much less leaky.

[bcking 3,157]

11 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

I agree, one side is biased one way and the other side is biased the other way.  It does seem strange though, for the longest time we have been told there is only biased MDR media.  Btw, I think we are living in the age where there are no unbiased media sources.

 

Personally, I am much more interested in the report from the DOJ IG as I would like to see what our government has been doing.  The whole Mueller thing seems to have started as an off-shoot of the Russian narrative which was immediately pushed right after Trump won by the Left biased media.  Also, the DOJ IG's investigation appears so far to be much less leaky.

In fairness while yes the left-sided media was heavily reporting it, I highly doubt that news outlets "pushed" anyone to start a special investigation. I'm not saying the investigation will find anything, but the intelligence community concluded that they had high confidence that Russia interfered in our election. It was perfectly reasonable to appoint a special counsel for that. There may have been minimal (if any links) directly with Trump, and yes I think the media has pushed that bit of it (Trump personally colluded). However the investigation isn't specifically to investigate Trump only.

 

As a side topic - Have you seen "The Post"? I realize it has a heavy left-leaning bent, and definitely tries to create connections between Nixon and Trump. That aside though, I think it did have some interesting points. There are a few good moments in it about how news people and politicians used to be able to be friends, and have trust in one another. I feel the same way about politicians on both sides of the aisle. We used to have far more cooperation, and a far more professional atmosphere. It's become quite aggressive/combative at all levels (the public, politicians, presidential candidates etc...).

Edited January 24, 2018 by bcking

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

22 hours ago, bcking said:

In fairness while yes the left-sided media was heavily reporting it, I highly doubt that news outlets "pushed" anyone to start a special investigation. I'm not saying the investigation will find anything, but the intelligence community concluded that they had high confidence that Russia interfered in our election. It was perfectly reasonable to appoint a special counsel for that. There may have been minimal (if any links) directly with Trump, and yes I think the media has pushed that bit of it (Trump personally colluded). However the investigation isn't specifically to investigate Trump only.

 

As a side topic - Have you seen "The Post"? I realize it has a heavy left-leaning bent, and definitely tries to create connections between Nixon and Trump. That aside though, I think it did have some interesting points. There are a few good moments in it about how news people and politicians used to be able to be friends, and have trust in one another. I feel the same way about politicians on both sides of the aisle. We used to have far more cooperation, and a far more professional atmosphere. It's become quite aggressive/combative at all levels (the public, politicians, presidential candidates etc...).

the Post  is a must see movie, luved it