The hypocrisy of the ________

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by BaltimoreSkins

If the republican argument for Neil Gorsuch is that a judge will rule based on facts and not on political opinion then I will assume that an FBI investigator can do the same.

Except when the same investigator handles two similar situations (Flynn and Abedin) in two polar opposite ways with a clear stated bias.

[mooby]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

Except when the same investigator handles two similar situations (Flynn and Abedin) in two polar opposite ways with a clear stated bias.

True, hence why he was removed from his job and demoted. And fortunately for you, he wasn't in a position to decide whether or not to bring charges anyways. So if all he brought to the table was corrupt bullshit, you are saying you don't have faith in Mueller that he could correctly decide whether that evidence would be admissible in court. Nor do you have faith that a pro-Republican Congress could look at that same evidence and determine whether it's admissible or not. This case is not going to built on his testimony. I bet Flynn will be the star witness, most likely along intercepts from Russia and other circumstantial bits and pieces used to tie it together.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by mooby

True, hence why he was removed from his job and demoted. And fortunately for you, he wasn't in a position to decide whether or not to bring charges anyways. So if all he brought to the table was corrupt bullshit, you are saying you don't have faith in Mueller that he could correctly decide whether that evidence would be admissible in court. Nor do you have faith that a pro-Republican Congress could look at that same evidence and determine whether it's admissible or not. This case is not going to built on his testimony. I bet Flynn will be the star witness, most likely along intercepts from Russia and other circumstantial bits and pieces used to tie it together.

I said before, if a majority Republican house sees the evidence and votes to impeach, or if the Supreme Court upholds the removal from office, I will abide by that.

But it's interesting, how many cases Baltimore just threw out on the basis of fake evidence by biased cops. The question is could a clearly biased investigator either by omitting evidence that clears or allowing patently false evidence (Steele Dossier) into the record, sway a case to a false end?

I think so...

[mooby]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

I said before, if a majority Republican house sees the evidence and votes to impeach, or if the Supreme Court upholds the removal from office, I will abide by that.

But it's interesting, how many cases Baltimore just threw out on the basis of fake evidence by biased cops. The question is could a clearly biased investigator either by omitting evidence that clears or allowing patently false evidence (Steele Dossier) into the record, sway a case to a false end?

I think so...

The beauty of it is that it's a team of investigators, so if one of them deliberately withheld evidence you'd like to assume there would be enough checks and balances in place to ensure it's not passed over. Additionally, in light of the fact he was removed for bias, you would also assume they are going over all his contributions to make sure they didn't miss anything, especially because it's going to be heavily scrutinized in court.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by mooby

The beauty of it is that it's a team of investigators, so if one of them deliberately withheld evidence you'd like to assume there would be enough checks and balances in place to ensure it's not passed over. Additionally, in light of the fact he was removed for bias, you would also assume they are going over all his contributions to make sure they didn't miss anything, especially because it's going to be heavily scrutinized in court.

well Politifact has this to say (before the removal of Stroetz (sp))

Duffy says Mueller "has brought in Democrat campaign donors at a very high level" on his team of lawyers.

Six of the 15 lawyers who have been publicly identified have not made campaign contributions to any political campaigns at the federal level. But among the lawyers who did make contributions, a total of $62,043 went to Democrats and $2,750 to Republicans, according to the special counsel’s office.

As for a Democratic bias in the investigation, Duffy doesn’t specifically make that charge. But Mueller himself is a longtime Republican. And he is prohibited from choosing lawyers based on political affiliations.

For a statement that is partially accurate, our rating is Half True.

So there is some level of affiliation bias likely in the team. I hope they are setting it aside, and if facts of guilt do come out, I hope they aren't concealed by classified or other bureacratic red tape. IF Trump did somehow collude with the Russians illegally then he should be gone.

BUT, so far what we KNOW is that the DNC run by HC funded the creation of a false dossier with the HELP OF THE RUSSIANS through an intermediary, AND that the FBI at the encouragement of a now exposed biased investigator may have used that fraudelent document to WIRETAP Hillary Clinton's opponent (Trump)'s team in the election.

So forgive me, if I am not seeing charges Trump but I do see a case for charges against Clinton, SURE WOULD LIKE TO KNOW WHAT WAS IN THOSE DELETED EMAILS.

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

well Politifact has this to say (before the removal of Stroetz (sp))



So there is some level of affiliation bias likely in the team. I hope they are setting it aside, and if facts of guilt do come out, I hope they aren't concealed by classified or other bureacratic red tape. IF Trump did somehow collude with the Russians illegally then he should be gone.

BUT, so far what we KNOW is that the DNC run by HC funded the creation of a false dossier with the HELP OF THE RUSSIANS through an intermediary, AND that the FBI at the encouragement of a now exposed biased investigator may have used that fraudelent document to WIRETAP Hillary Clinton's opponent (Trump)'s team in the election.

So forgive me, if I am not seeing charges Trump but I do see a case for charges against Clinton, SURE WOULD LIKE TO KNOW WHAT WAS IN THOSE DELETED EMAILS.

See this has nothing to do with Mueller,it has to do with GOP crybaby BS that if they go after trump they must go after Hillary.


Hillary went through eight House investigations and they found nothing,go back to my link they have trump underlings to the tee .People are afraid that Mueller is going to find something so they want him gone,Facts be damn!

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by Giantone

See this has nothing to do with Mueller,it has to do with GOP crybaby BS that if they go after trump they must go after Hillary.


Hillary went through eight House investigations and they found nothing,go back to my link they have trump underlings to the tee .People are afraid that Mueller is going to find something so they want him gone,Facts be damn!

It is not BS. Everything I said is open knowledge except how or if the dossier relates to the fisa warrant.

So far Mueller has not presented any factual basis for any charges against Trump. If there are facts - not innuendo and leaks - that present a compelling case then when they are shown we can discuss them. For now the facts that are coming out, bias investigator, a team with a minimum of 8 democratic partisans including one who defended the Clinton foundation, proven facts that documents were deleted and lied with no charges filed, about all point to a less then unbiased fact finding mission.