Tweet
I’m not going to read your response. You asked how. I provided an answer. If you don’t buy it, that’s okay by me.
-
Livin the dream -
An Obama State Department official has acknowledged he had regular contact with the author of the controversial anti-Trump dossier – coming forward in an apparent bid to blunt expected criticism from the Republican chairman of the House Intelligence Committee.
In a Washington Post column posted late Thursday, Jonathan Winer detailed an extensive exchange of documents with ex-British spy Christopher Steele, a friend of his since 2009.
He said he shared “more than 100 of Steele’s reports with the Russia experts at the State Department” over a period of two years. These weren’t related to American politics – but he would later share information about the Trump dossier with the top levels of the Obama-era State Department.
Further, Winer said he shared separate Trump-related material passed on by a Clinton contact with Steele – filling in the blanks regarding an exchange that was mentioned earlier this week in a Senate memo. And he acknowledged that material, originally from Clinton-tied activist/journalist Cody Shearer, made its way to the FBI.
Comment
-
I've plugged the podcast before, but if you are at all interested in a moderate and well-informed liberal opinion on the Mueller investigation and the Nunes memo, you should check out the latest episode of the Stay Tuned with Preet podcast. He's a former US Attorney, and he details why "bias" may or may not be important. Like I've posted before, ultimately it has no bearing on the actual investigation. You investigate the bias, you figure out if the information is trustworthy for various other reasons, etc. People are acting like it's not something that comes up in literally every trial/investigation ever. Fox News just says "DON'T TRUST THE INVESTIGATION, CERTAIN PIECES OF INFORMATION CAME FROM A BIASED SOURCE." And lots of people with equal levels of credibility on the left are acting like there isn't any bias or whatever.
The truth is that bias exists constantly. always. every single time. You just work around it and figure out what is true and what isn't.Comment
-
I don't have time for a podcast, but how does Preet handle this: Did Comey know that Strzok was changing the verbiage in the Hillary case based on his bias? Or did Comey just think Strzok was doing a great job at being an independent investigator? What if we find out there was systemic bias AFTER the decision was made not to indict Clinton? Strzok was fired well after the Clinton decision was made, and he was allowed to stay on and had ultimate influence throughout, so we should assume Comey didn't know about the bias and made an intentionally misinformed decision. Or did Comey ALSO have a bias that affected the final decision?
What if the decision makers that are supposed to "work around it" are ALSO deeply biased?
How do you work around that? -
Kung Wu, if you don't have time for a podcast, you just need to get a longer commute.
I think there's been very little discussion about the bias as it relates to Clinton's investigation since that isn't ongoing. Frankly, that's a lot harder to remedy. If someone gets off because the investigator helped them out, there isn't a great option that I know of. Personally, the fact that Comey had his last minute announcement saying "we're re-investigating her," is a pretty big indicator that the Comey investigation wasn't biased in favor of Clinton. I've never seen anything like that. But really, either way, it's irrelevant to the Trump investigation. My comment was in relation to people's concern that the Trump investigation has been plagued by bias.
As for your secondary question: there obviously isn't a good solution, but I think we have to trust that it's not a serious threat. Mueller fired the text message folks way before we ever found out about it. It's really, really hard to find negative things written about Mueller prior to his appointment. By almost unanimous agreement prior to his appointment, he runs a tight ship, and isn't going to let his bias (as a republican mind you) infect his investigation.
From a silly partisan politics perspective, if we truly believe in the deep state and think the whole thing is compromised, it absolutely justifies Trump's release of the Nunes memo, right? The DOJ and FBI are saying "absolutely, do not release that memo!" and of course that's what they'd do, since it implicates their behavior, right? But then you have to release the dems memo, too. You've taken a stand that transparency in this area is more important than what our deep state calls national security, then YOU have to be the one who is above board and transparent. -
The extreme bias displayed by those conducting the Russian Collusion investigation would absolutely discount the investigation. Almost every single person on the investigation has been shown to have bias or extreme bias against Trump. Do you think any of the indictments already issued have any chance of a conviction? I would imagine every guilty plea will be recanted and every defense attorney would love to represent these defendants with the evidence that has come to light about the investigators.
Also, every piece of "evidence" we have seen resulting from the Russian Collusion investigation has been the result of someone with extreme bias (Strzok interviewed Flynn and determined he lied, FISA warrant using Steele dossier paid for by DNC and Clinton campaign and substantiated by planted Yahoo news story).
The assertion that there is bias in every investigation is absurd. At this level, those with bias are EXPECTED to recuse themselves. Just the fact that Mueller didn't recuse himself is evidence enough that his entire investigation is biased. How can you possibly investigate the firing of your best friend, your hand-picked successor and not have any bias against the person that fired him. There is way more bias for 80% of those on the special counsel to recuse themselves than there was for Sessions to recuse himself. Are we supposed to believe that the Mueller team is capable of investigating these instances of bias in an unbiased way? Everything, including the selection of his team, has been done with inherent bias.
Now if there is actual proof of Russian Collusion I can see Mueller possibly being able to be unbiased, but anything beyond that (obstruction of justice) Mueller should not be involved.
Add to all of this the fact that Mueller took the job as special counsel to investigate Trump the DAY AFTER Trump interviewed Mueller for FBI Director and didn't select him. Hmm, no hard feelings or bias there. Rosenstein should be the next person fired.Last edited by shockfan89_; February 12, 2018, 04:20 PM.
-
-
^^^^^^^^
Have to agree. No bias? You gotta' be sh------ me? Now the leftists scream "What's bias got to do with any of this? It's not germane!" Case closed. End of story.
And just why did Rice think it was OK to unmask? Who sanctioned it?
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/by...rticle/2648896
Innovative... Outsmarted yet again.Comment
-
-
General bias is not why people recuse themselves. Conflict of interest is, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!" Judicial recusal happens in cases where those involved have "a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding." A party or attorney who believes such bias or prejudice exists must prove it with admissible evidence, and cannot base this belief on mere suspicion.
Prosecutors have no such need to be impartial. In fact, they can't be. Their paycheck literally depends on their ability to prove the defendant is guilty. A prosecutor can be forced to recuse himself if they have deeply personal connections to the defendant or financial interests in the case itself. As far as I'm aware, Mueller isn't married to Trump, hasn't served as Trump's lawyer, and doesn't have a competing hotel business.
To claim that Donald Trump's obstruction of justice makes him immune to investigation is so ... I don't have words. The only thing worse than our country's descent into authoritarianism is how stupid this all is.
Why defend Donald Trump? Why defend Flynn? Why defend Moore? Why is this the hill you've decided to die on?
Why defend literal rapists, kidnappers, and pedophiles?
You don't need to answer; that was rhetorical.Comment
-
I never said that Donald Trump's ALLEGED obstruction of justice makes him immune to investigation, I said Mueller should not be allowed to participate and you just proved my point. Mueller, and the majority of his special counsel, have a conflict of interest. These are members of the FBI and DOJ investigating the Trump Campaign for the same things that they were working on, and had a personal and professional stake in as members of the FBI and DOJ. If that isn't conflict of interest, I don't know what could possibly be a conflict of interest.
-
-
"Rapists, kidnappers and pedophiles", there you go again talking about Bill Clinton.Originally posted by CBB_Fan View Post
Keep preaching it baby, your on a roll!!!!!!An “Old West” Texas analysis and summary of Mueller report and Congress’ efforts in one sentence:
"While we recognize that the subject did not actually steal any horses, he is obviously guilty of trying to resist being hanged for it."Comment
-
I have never in my life cast a vote for a Clinton. You cast your vote for Trump.Originally posted by JJClamdip View Post
But the fact that your support for rape, human trafficking and murder is so enthusiastic it deserves 6 exclamation points should be your clarion call. At some point in your life you though the appropriate response to "why do you support heinous acts" is "I think you support them as well!!!!!!" rather than "I don't support those acts, and I rescind my support to anyone who commits them."
Comment
-
I can tell a Bill Clinton supporter when I see one, you can't fool me, I can tell that you have a man crush on him.Originally posted by CBB_Fan View Post
An “Old West” Texas analysis and summary of Mueller report and Congress’ efforts in one sentence:
"While we recognize that the subject did not actually steal any horses, he is obviously guilty of trying to resist being hanged for it."Comment
-
What? This is literally insane. Seskridge, is that you?Originally posted by CBB_Fan View PostLivin the dreamComment
-
I believe you are the first authoriatarian libertarian that I have ever heard of.Originally posted by CBB_Fan View PostLivin the dreamComment
-
With her panties in a bunch BIG TIME!Originally posted by wufan View Post
Last edited by JJClamdip; February 14, 2018, 07:57 PM.An “Old West” Texas analysis and summary of Mueller report and Congress’ efforts in one sentence:
"While we recognize that the subject did not actually steal any horses, he is obviously guilty of trying to resist being hanged for it."Comment
-
I can't tell if I'm yelling at addled 70 year olds or teenagers on the spectrum.
All I can tell is that for some reason you support a man whose then-wife said the following under oath in order to get a divorce:
For some reason you support a National Security Adviser that:"Trump was furious that a “scalp reduction” operation he’d undergone to eliminate a bald spot had been unexpectedly painful. Ivana had recommended the plastic surgeon. In retaliation, Hurt wrote, Trump yanked out a handful of his wife’s hair, and then forced himself on her sexually. Afterward, according to the book, she spent the night locked in a bedroom, crying; in the morning, Trump asked her, “with menacing casualness, ‘Does it hurt?’”
And of course, who could forget all the love and support for Roy Moore, who according to then 16-year old Beverly Nelson:engaged in a conspiracy to arrange the rendition of Fethullah Gülen to the Erdoğan government...the Wall Street Journal reported a meeting about the plan, in which former CIA director James Woolsey is said to have participated. Friday’s report describes a second meeting involving both Flynns at the 21 Club restaurant, a prohibition-era New York speakeasy patronised by Trump, in mid-December. According to “people familiar with the investigation”, it was at this encounter that the $15m payment was discussed.
I'm proud to take your mockery, because it is infinitely better than the disgust I'd feel if I supported any of these men, or even simply stood silent. I recommend moving to a town like Steubenville, Ohio, which may be more to your taste.reached over and began groping me, putting his hands on my breasts. I tried to open my car door to leave, but he reached over and locked it so I could not get out. I tried fighting him off, while yelling at him to stop, but instead of stopping he began squeezing my neck attempting to force my head onto his crotch. I continued to struggle. I was determined that I was not allow him to force me to have sex with him. I was terrified. He was also trying to pull my shirt off. I thought that he was going to rape me. I was twisting and struggling and begging him to stop. I had tears running down my face.Comment
-
Who the hell has been supporting Roy Moore and Mr Flynn? What does any of this have to do with Trump/Russia?
You appear irrational.Last edited by wufan; February 14, 2018, 08:58 PM.Livin the dreamComment
-
Irrational is not quite accurate, bat s h I t crazy would be a better term.Originally posted by wufan View Post
Definitely off of her meds and in need of immediate medical attention and maybe confinement in a psych ward or intense metal health counceling would be warranted.
Last edited by JJClamdip; February 15, 2018, 06:27 AM.An “Old West” Texas analysis and summary of Mueller report and Congress’ efforts in one sentence:
"While we recognize that the subject did not actually steal any horses, he is obviously guilty of trying to resist being hanged for it."Comment
Comment