Whoopi Goldberg: Riots Over Mueller Firing ‘Would Be Fun to Watch’

[bcking 3,157]

2 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

I can understand the political strategies being played out here, and like I said, this sets a bad precedence for future presidential elections where anyone can raise concerns and we should have a special prosecutor appointed to look into the allegations.

In future elections if ODNI publishes a report showing a consensus from all intelligence agencies that a specific country had a coordinated effort to manipulate that election, then I'll be all for supporting another Special Counsel at that time. 

 

Sounds fine with me.

[jg121783 3,915]

3 hours ago, bcking said:

 

 

 

Jokes and contradictions aside,

 

I'm glad you, B&K and I all agree that the investigation should continue. Though I guess you want it to both be over with, and to continue...at the same time? You may want to get off the fence.

I guess I should have been more clear. I believe by reasonable standards it SHOULD be over. However from a political strategy standpoint it is best to let it continue. So I am in favor of Trump not firing Mueller and letting this whole thing play out even though by reasonable standards the investigation should already be over. In a way I guess I am conflicted on this because you have to ask yourself is it ethical to allow millions more tax dollars to be wasted for political gain?

 

[bcking 3,157]

4 minutes ago, jg121783 said:

I guess I should have been more clear. I believe by reasonable standards it SHOULD be over. However from a political strategy standpoint it is best to let it continue. So I am in favor of Trump not firing Mueller and letting this whole thing play out even though by reasonable standards the investigation should already be over. In a way I guess I am conflicted on this because you have to ask yourself is it ethical to allow millions more tax dollars to be wasted for political gain?

 

It seems to me like it would be hard to make a reasonable judgment about whether or not the investigation should be concluded without knowing the contents of the investigation.

 

Just being reasonable here...

[TBoneTX 45,291]

The point that might be forgotten is that first should come the crime, then the investigation.  Since when is a special prosecutor (or any prosecutor) enabled to go on an open fishing expedition?

[bcking 3,157]

6 minutes ago, TBoneTX said:

The point that might be forgotten is that first should come the crime, then the investigation.  Since when is a special prosecutor (or any prosecutor) enabled to go on an open fishing expedition?

We have had this discussion before, and it's just not true. They didn't just make up a random thing to investigate. 

 

Most investigations start with some level of suspicion of a crime. They don't need absolute proof the crime occured before investigating. People are still innocent until proven guilty, but that doesn't mean you can't investigate until you know the person is guilty or the crime definitely occurred. If you already knew they were guilty without doubt, you wouldn't need the investigation.

 

 

I wouldn't investigate a hypothesis in the lab if I knew the hypothesis was true. Would kind of defeat the purpose.

 

 

[bcking 3,157]

Good ole wikipedia -

 

"In the United States, a special prosecutor (or special counsel or independent counsel or independent prosecutor) is a lawyer appointed to investigate, and potentially prosecute, a particular case of suspected wrongdoing for which a conflict of interest exists for the usual prosecuting authority."

 

some things were already bolded and underlined so it's hard to emphasize. Key words are investigate, potentially and suspected.

 

so sorry but that assumption is just wrong.

Edited April 14, 2018 by bcking

[jg121783 3,915]

4 hours ago, bcking said:

We have had this discussion before, and it's just not true. They didn't just make up a random thing to investigate. 

 

Most investigations start with some level of suspicion of a crime. They don't need absolute proof the crime occured before investigating. People are still innocent until proven guilty, but that doesn't mean you can't investigate until you know the person is guilty or the crime definitely occurred. If you already knew they were guilty without doubt, you wouldn't need the investigation.

 

 

I wouldn't investigate a hypothesis in the lab if I knew the hypothesis was true. Would kind of defeat the purpose.

 

 

Fair enough. What specific crime is being investigated here? I keep hearing "Russian collusion". Which USC does "Russian collusion" violate? When was an investigation done that determined there is a valid reason to have a special prosecutor? Which is required under the law by the way. A special prosecutor is charged with investigating a specific crime and is not allowed to go all over the place like Muller has done. I'm not even sure there is a specific crime being investigated here or what that crime allegedly is.

[Dashinka 24,499]

5 hours ago, bcking said:

We have had this discussion before, and it's just not true. They didn't just make up a random thing to investigate. 

 

Most investigations start with some level of suspicion of a crime. They don't need absolute proof the crime occured before investigating. People are still innocent until proven guilty, but that doesn't mean you can't investigate until you know the person is guilty or the crime definitely occurred. If you already knew they were guilty without doubt, you wouldn't need the investigation.

 

 

I wouldn't investigate a hypothesis in the lab if I knew the hypothesis was true. Would kind of defeat the purpose.

 

 

You actually contradicted yourself.  What was the suspicion of a crime that prompted the investigation in the first place?  That is really the question here.  Of course investigations generally start with a suspicion and not a known guilt or innocence mentality.  Take Watergate for instance, there was an underlying crime being investigated, the DNC break-in.  With the current investigation, there does not appear to be an underlying crime being investigated.

[spookyturtle 9,465]

On 4/12/2018 at 11:56 AM, jg121783 said:

http://www.breitbart.com/video/2018/04/11/whoopi-goldberg-riots-mueller-firing-fun-watch/

 

Rioting in the streets is the wet dream of the left. They are pinning all their hopes on Trump firing Mueller before it comes out that Mueller has nothing related to Russian collusion and has wasted millions of dollars. This is exactly why Trump will never fire Mueller. Keep dreamimg lefties.

[bcking 3,157]

3 hours ago, jg121783 said:

Fair enough. What specific crime is being investigated here? I keep hearing "Russian collusion". Which USC does "Russian collusion" violate? When was an investigation done that determined there is a valid reason to have a special prosecutor? Which is required under the law by the way. A special prosecutor is charged with investigating a specific crime and is not allowed to go all over the place like Muller has done. I'm not even sure there is a specific crime being investigated here or what that crime allegedly is.

Great question for the Deputy Attorney General. I'll defer to him. I think he knows better than either one of us. 

 

Though I guess maybe I should be suspicious of him based on possible loyalty to who appointed him....but I'll let that slide.

 

2 hours ago, Bill & Katya said:

You actually contradicted yourself.  What was the suspicion of a crime that prompted the investigation in the first place?  That is really the question here.  Of course investigations generally start with a suspicion and not a known guilt or innocence mentality.  Take Watergate for instance, there was an underlying crime being investigated, the DNC break-in.  With the current investigation, there does not appear to be an underlying crime being investigated.

How did I contradict myself? 

 

The Deputy Attorney General determined there was enough suspicion of an underlying crime that it was worth it to investigate. Doesn't mean there will ultimately be a crime. Go back to the definition I pasted. It says potentially prosecute, not definitely.

 

Now as to what the evidence of suspicion is -

 

Why does the public seem to assume that we must know everything? Seems like hubris to me, from the point of view of a member of the public. From the point of view of the DoJ it would seem like reckless, inappropriate and ill-advised. The decision to investigate is not subject to the court of public opinion. The DoJ doesn't need to "ask the audience" first.

 

Even with small police investigations, how often does the police just hand everything they know over to the public before their investigation is done? It's always "this is an ongoing investigation blah blah blah". They don't go looking for approval to investigate from the public.

 

The Deputy Attorney General determined there was enough suspicion to investigate. It isn't our business to know all the evidence so it's not our job to judge that. We can judge what is made public, but there is no expectation at the beginning of an investigation that all possible initial evidence should be shared with the public. That's just not how these things ever work.

Edited April 14, 2018 by bcking

[Dashinka 24,499]

Sure it is our business to know what the underlying crime is that is being investigated.  What is it?

[bcking 3,157]

18 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

Sure it is our business to know what the underlying crime is that is being investigated.  What is it?

From the looks of the current criminal charges from the investigation...

 

Conspiracy to commit fraid against the USA seems to be a frequent flyer.

 

I'm not a legal expert and I'm pretty sure neither are you, so don't ask how we interpret that crime. Mueller, the DAG and the Judges that he has gone through have all agreed to prosecute those crimed. 

 

We have at least one legal expert here on the forums...if we can just turn the "lawyer light" on in the sky to signal we need them...

Edited April 14, 2018 by bcking

[bcking 3,157]

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/07/12/what-is-collusion-215366

 

Here are some comments from smarter legal minds than you or I.

 

 

[Dashinka 24,499]

Just now, bcking said:

From the looks of the current criminal charges from the investigation...

 

Conspiracy to commit fraid against the USA seems to be a frequent flyer.

 

I'm not a legal expert and I'm pretty sure neither are you, so don't ask how we interpret that crime. Mueller, the DAG and the Judges that he has gone through have all agreed to prosecute those crimed. 

 

We have at least one legal expert here on the forums...if we can just turn the "lawyer light" on in the sky to signal we need them...

So you are saying that was  the crime they were after all along?  If not, then it is just a fishing expedition which seems to be the case since they have two pleas for process crimes (lying to the investigators)and two crimes that don’t appear to have anything to do Russian collusion.  Again, as you stated, investigations usually start with an actual underlying crime, I ask again, what was it?

[Dashinka 24,499]

2 minutes ago, bcking said:

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/07/12/what-is-collusion-215366

 

Here are some comments from smarter legal minds than you or I.

 

 

So based on that Hillary Clinton possibly committed a crime?