• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Comey Cited as Insubordinate, but Report Finds No Bias in F.B.I. Decision to Clear Clinton

iguanaman said:
In other words Bias in favor of your Dear Leader doesn't count. How cultish of you.
Click to expand...

Resulting to the 'cult' charge. Clear evidence you have lost the argument but lack the spine to admit it.
 
MTAtech said:
Yes, it is an opinion piece because Lawrence Noble, the general counsel of the Campaign Legal Center, a nonpartisan watchdog group, is giving his learned opinion of the matter. That has weight -- unlike some guy on the internet. His "opinion,' namely, “That fact that it appears Mueller removed Strzok from the investigation as soon as he found out about the messages tends to underscore Mueller’s seriousness about keeping the investigation free from even the appearance of bias,” correspond to the opinion of the Inspector General of Justice report -- thus giving it further weight.
Click to expand...

If Mueller cared about the appearance of impropriety, he wouldn’t have picked a bunch of Hillary donors to make up His team. He only got rid of Strzok after his bias became public. He had no problem having that kind of impropriety on his team when no one knew about it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Anthony60 said:
If Mueller cared about the appearance of impropriety, he wouldn’t have picked a bunch of Hillary donors to make up His team. He only got rid of Strzok after his bias became public. He had no problem having that kind of impropriety on his team when no one knew about it.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
There are 17 members on Mueller’s legal team. Below is from Politifact:
A month after Mueller’s selection, Trump implied the investigation was politically motivated, making a claim... saying: "I can say that the people that have been hired (for the independent Russia investigation) are all Hillary Clinton supporters, some of them worked for Hillary Clinton."PolitiFact National rated Trump’s statement Mostly False.

At that point, the names of eight lawyers on Mueller’s team had been made public. Three had made campaign contributions to Clinton, but none had worked for her. One had defended the Clinton Foundation in court for WilmerHale. And another represented a Clinton aide, also for WilmerHale.
The Justice Department looked into the contributions and employment histories of all of Mueller’s hires and determined them consistent with the rules of professional responsibility.
Click to expand...
Mueller is a Republican. So, out of eight lawyers working for him, 3 had contributed to her. Is three “a bunch?” Is your implication that any Democrats working for Mueller is bias? I didn’t realize that one couldn’t hire Democrats when prosecuting Republicans.
 
MTAtech said:
That's a preposterous argument, which is essentially, 'if Hillary Clinton committed a crime and was charges, she wouldn't be a candidate.' The operative idea is that she did not commit a crime and, therefore, was NOT charged.

Meanwhile, the FBI was silent on the fact that Russia was interfering with the election in order to assist Trump.
Click to expand...


Admittedly, my thinking here is that even the Democrats would choose not to nominate s candidate who would be facing a grand jury indictment.
Of course, she was not charged. And as the IG report shows, she was the beneficiary of an extremely generous investigation. It was certainly far more kind than what Trump had faced.
 
Atomic Kid said:
I think we can safely ridicule your continuing delusions that Ms Clinton had committed a criminal act and that Trump was not under investigation. At least two people in Trump's campaign were already under investigation for contacts they had with Russian foreign or were under suspicion of acting as a foreign agent. Manafort was already under FBI investigation for the bribes he took from the pro-Russian government premier in the Ukraine and for conducting a money laundering operation for Russian oligarch closely tied to Putin well before the start Trump's 2016 Presidential campaign and despite previous warnings of possible attempts by the Russians to infiltrate his campaign he goes ahead and hires Manafort to head up his campaign. Seeing that all these people worked directly for his campaign that has his name emblazoned on it not be a subject of that investigation. He may not have been a target but he certainly has to be a subject. As for IG report on the Clinton email case I will post a couple of points that reference it that come from a popular legal/national security blog. since it certainly sums it up far more succinctly than I would ever be able to.

https://www.lawfareblog.com/nine-takeaways-inspector-generals-report-clinton-email-investigation
Click to expand...

Well, if Trump was under investigation, Comey has committed perjury. He testified under oath he was not. And Mr. Clapper recently stated that Trump was never under investigation (it’s why, as he said, it was ludicrous to suggest the campaign was spied upon. Now I guess it is safe to say the Trump campaign was spied upon).

As far as the Lawfare cite: Andrew McCarthy over at NATIONAL REVIEW effectively demolishes it by pointing out the report lacks any sort of common sense.
 
iguanaman said:
I just cited an event that was not only gentler on Trump but an outright GIFT to him. Your continued willful ignorance is noted.
Click to expand...

You miss the obvious gift: an investigation of Mrs. Clinton that was gentle and rushed, with plenty of questionable decisions made which benefitted her.
 
MTAtech said:
And also because of Trump's whining that the election was rigged against him. The FBI response, either knowingly or not, was to be gentler on Trump.
Click to expand...

Knowingly or unknowingly gentler on Trump?
Maybe the IG report would be better be concluded that the FBI, knowingly or unknowingly, was gentler on Clinton.
 
Athanasius68 said:
Admittedly, my thinking here is that even the Democrats would choose not to nominate s candidate who would be facing a grand jury indictment.
Of course, she was not charged. And as the IG report shows, she was the beneficiary of an extremely generous investigation. It was certainly far more kind than what Trump had faced.
Click to expand...

Were the Benghazi investigations far more kind to her?
 
Athanasius68 said:
You miss the obvious gift: an investigation of Mrs. Clinton that was gentle and rushed, with plenty of questionable decisions made which benefitted her.
Click to expand...

Funny but that was not what the IG report said at all. The only ones saying that are the rabid Trumpist partisans like you. Why do you think that it is valid in any way? Do you always blindly believe what other partisans tell you? One thing is for certain you have no legal qualifications to make that judgement and those that do disagree.
 
Fletch said:
Resulting to the 'cult' charge. Clear evidence you have lost the argument but lack the spine to admit it.
Click to expand...

That is so Trumpish of you. When you are losing just declare victory and leave the room.
 
eohrnberger said:
CNN? Seriously?

Aren't these the same guys that put up a picture of kids in cages from the Obama era, claiming it was present day?

Yes, children who's parents made the bad decision of illegally crossing the border are being detained, as per Federal law, passed by Democrats controlled congress, if I recall.

Realistically, why would the parents of these children make decisions that could lead to this outcome? Better for their children if they'd enter the country legally, wouldn't it be?

They are most certainly not in cages.

New York Times reporter on Casa Padre facility: 'It's packed, but not overcrowded'

Casa Padre: Inside the Texas shelter holding immigrant children

The 'news' (political propaganda) media and their TDS fixation are once again doing a disservice to the electorate, not that it's a surprise to anyone paying any attention or an outright political party hack.

The congress, and Dems especially, are going to have to own up their responsibility of this mess, and fix it. So far, the Dems have put their politics above the concerns of both DACA and now illegals and their children. When are they going to actually do what they've been elected to office for?
Click to expand...

Obama never had 2000 children taken from their parents in 6 weeks. His policy with few exceptions was to keep families together in detention. The Dems will not submit to blackmail using children as hostages. Trump can shut down the Govt. and will still not get their votes for his ridiculous wall. When they get the majority you will see what they will do and you won't like it one bit. Trump will be neutered and hung out to dry.
 
Last edited:
Plus Ultra said:
The notion leaks on the disposition of Weiner's laptop prove the FBI was anti-Hillary is ridiculous.
Click to expand...

LOL The IG report stated that Comey violated FBI policy to help Trump and that is far more than anything done to Trump by those in the bureau that hated him.
 
"...hopeful texts" between two FBI agents is EXACTLY the bias we are discussing. He missed calling it what it is.
minnie616 said:
There were no FBI memos to keep Trump from becoming President. Just hopeful texts between two lovers who believed that the polls predicting a Clinton win 2016 were correct.

(I was told it was a total of 12 texts over an 11 month period.)

From an article I read:



https://firenewsfeed.com/politics/1680968
Click to expand...
 
Hatuey said:
Somewhere in America, Michael Flynn's lawyers are getting paid hundreds of thousands for no reason at all.

Sent from Trump Plaza's basement using Putin's MacBook.
Click to expand...

Well, what is the investigators doing about that? Did anyone stop it? Michael Flynn was a half-wit. And frankly, I don’t know why the president didn’t listen to president Obama about this gentleman! If I was the top person who was on this case. I’d advise Flynn’s Attorney and, the President’s Attorney which is obviously Giuliani. To cut off the checks because this would be a another problem that the democrats would use.


Can’t censor this Patriot
 
iguanaman said:
That is so Trumpish of you. When you are losing just declare victory and leave the room.
Click to expand...

More dishonesty on your part. There is nothing to lose or gain in any discussion with you. Its just wasted time.
 
smallvoice said:
"...hopeful texts" between two FBI agents is EXACTLY the bias we are discussing. He missed calling it what it is.
Click to expand...

I am pretty that the people who supported canadate Trump were hopeful the pools were wrong and wanted Trump to win.

Most Americans have a hopeful bias toward one presidential candidate or the other during election time.
 
MTAtech said:
There are 17 members on Mueller’s legal team. Below is from Politifact:
Mueller is a Republican. So, out of eight lawyers working for him, 3 had contributed to her. Is three “a bunch?” Is your implication that any Democrats working for Mueller is bias? I didn’t realize that one couldn’t hire Democrats when prosecuting Republicans.
Click to expand...

Oh, so he's a Republican! Oh, well that makes all the difference in the world! What was I thinking? Of course, he is backing Trump. Thanks for clearing that up, there's just no way he could be another Trump hater from the Washington swamp. No way, not Mueller. He's not a guy that would wrongly go after people. Except, of course, for the times he did that before.
 
minnie616 said:
I am pretty that the people who supported canadate Trump were hopeful the pools were wrong and wanted Trump to win.

Most Americans have a hopeful bias toward one presidential candidate or the other during election time.
Click to expand...
Most Americans don't have the power to stop it. That is exactly what Strzok wrote that he was going to do.

Sent from my SM-T587P using Tapatalk
 
Anthony60 said:
Oh, so he's a Republican! Oh, well that makes all the difference in the world! What was I thinking? Of course, he is backing Trump. Thanks for clearing that up, there's just no way he could be another Trump hater from the Washington swamp. No way, not Mueller. He's not a guy that would wrongly go after people. Except, of course, for the times he did that before.
Click to expand...
I don't know what point you are making. You originally asserted (post#1003) that 'Mueller picked a bunch of Hillary donors to make up His team.' As I have proven, only three out of 8 lawyers donated to Clinton. That is lower than the voter averages.

Your overall insinuation is that Mueller's team is biased against Trump because {hark} Democrats are part of Mueller's team. The idea that Mueller's team has been conducting their work in a manner less than the professionalism and fairness required has not been established. Just because Swampy screams "WITCH HUNT" doesn't make it so.

Further undercutting your claim is that Mueller is a Republican, which you dwell on in the last post calling him a Trump hater. So what is it? First Democrats are not worthy of being part of this investigation and now anyone in this investigation has to take a I-like-Trump loyalty test?
 
MTAtech said:
I don't know what point you are making...
Click to expand...
That seems to be true.

Your overall insinuation is that Mueller's team is biased against Trump because {hark} Democrats are part of Mueller's team. The idea that Mueller's team has been conducting their work in a manner less than the professionalism and fairness required has not been established. Just because Swampy screams "WITCH HUNT" doesn't make it so.
Click to expand...
The point is, he hired Strzok. Now, you could argue that Mueller was absolutely clueless, knew nothing about Strzok's hate for Trump and desire to stop him from being President, even though he won the election. That he does no research and hires people without knowing if they are capable of unbiased professionalism. I don't buy it for a second. He knew all about Strzok and knew what he brought to the table.
 
Anthony60 said:
That seems to be true.

The point is, he hired Strzok. Now, you could argue that Mueller was absolutely clueless, knew nothing about Strzok's hate for Trump and desire to stop him from being President, even though he won the election. That he does no research and hires people without knowing if they are capable of unbiased professionalism. I don't buy it for a second. He knew all about Strzok and knew what he brought to the table.
Click to expand...
Just like he knows Weisman.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
 
j-mac said:
Most Americans don't have the power to stop it. That is exactly what Strzok wrote that he was going to do.

Sent from my SM-T587P using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Every legal voter has the power to vote.
 
Anthony60 said:
The point is, he hired Strzok. Now, you could argue that Mueller was absolutely clueless, knew nothing about Strzok's hate for Trump and desire to stop him from being President, even though he won the election. That he does no research and hires people without knowing if they are capable of unbiased professionalism. I don't buy it for a second. He knew all about Strzok and knew what he brought to the table.
Click to expand...
You are right. Mueller should have used clairvoyant powers to predict that Strzok was having an affair and texting mean things about Trump. In any case, the IG concluded that even though they both didn't like Trump, they carried out their work professionally. When Mueller found out, he reassigned them to avoid any hint of bias.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom