• 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!

Initial talks underway about Trump interview in Mueller Russia probe

trouble13 said:
I was looking around for some links about some of the problems with muellers reputation that I have read in the past when I came across this OP ed from the Washington times. It sums up my position really well.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jul/4/robert-muellers-bias-will-affect-his-investigation/



He goes on in the article to explain the same backlash that I see occurring from each possible conclusion and recommends Mueller be removed for the same reason I think he needs to be replaced. He tainted his own investigation by making poor choices when he assembled his team.


Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Your claim is that if someone donates to a politician that they can't investigate anyone on the other side. That's idiotic. These people do this for a living. Everything they do has to go through the deputy attorney general and through one of the most respected officials in washington (Mueller). To claim this is a witch hunt as people are doing is an incredibly obvious lie.
 
roughdraft274 said:
If the investigation is "Did anyone in the trump campaign collude/work with Russia in the 2016 election" do you not think seeing who received money from Russian sources is an integral part of that investigation?
Click to expand...

Why, exactly, should that be limited to only the Trump campaign? There is certainly plenty of "smoke" indicating that the source of the Fusion GPS "opposition research" was foreign and in part Russian. Money flowing in the opposite direction is equally (if not more) troubling.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Yes, based on the charges Mueller has made thus far - those charges had absolutely nothing to do with the rigging of the 2016 POTUS election. Many seem to think that Mueller is going to show that Trump has obstructed justice and/or knew of other process crimes likely committed by his campaign staff - but that is not election rigging. While it may be true that less than honorable methods were employed by the Trump campaign, that sort of thing is equally likely with the Fusion GPS "opposition research" fiasco - foreign help was enlisted to gain information to be used for political advantage in the 2016 POTUS election and steps were taken to make it appear that those at the top were clean (not directly involved in that search for pay dirt).
Click to expand...
I think there's a big difference between an opposition research firm using contacts in foreign countries to investigate rivals, and a political campaign engaging with foreign actors giving them inside knowledge of their countries efforts to influence a US election, with material that had obtained through the use of espionage.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Why, exactly, should that be limited to only the Trump campaign? There is certainly plenty of "smoke" indicating that the source of the Fusion GPS "opposition research" was foreign and in part Russian. Money flowing in the opposite direction is equally (if not more) troubling.
Click to expand...
Contacting Russians isn't a crime.

Working with their foreign intelligence operations that are seeking to undermine a US election is.
 
Fletch said:
Exactly. I don't think anyone wants the standard to be: We elect a person president then immediately appoint a special prosecutor to do an anal exam of the persons entire life to see if anything was ever done that broke some law. And if nothing is found, perhaps we can nail people around him on process crimes or an attempt to cover up some embarrassing event his second cousin may have had back in the 80's. People on the left just hate Trump so much they don't care what method is used to get rid of him.
Click to expand...
Congrats, you just perfectly described what the GOP did to Clinton in the 90's.

Sounds like the only issue you have is that it's a president you support this time.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Why, exactly, should that be limited to only the Trump campaign? There is certainly plenty of "smoke" indicating that the source of the Fusion GPS "opposition research" was foreign and in part Russian. Money flowing in the opposite direction is equally (if not more) troubling.
Click to expand...

If it happened the other way, investigate it. But you're comparing apples to oranges.

On one hand we have a campaign who made repeated contacts with Russia, lied up and down about all of them, received an email saying Russia supported Trump, knew that Russia hacked a political rival and didn't tell the authorities, possibly even aiding in the disbursement of this illegally obtained information, Russia ran an intelligent and massive social media campaign in favor of this candidate, people have claimed that dirt was exchanged for future political favors of getting rid of sanctions and then we find out that Flynn lied about discussing sanctions and that when Trump won one of the first things they did was start staffers on looking at those sanctions etc.

On the other, they hired a well established ex intelligence official who went and got some information from his sources in russia and when stumbling upon something he found to be questionable, handed over all of his information to the proper authorities.

These simply are not the same thing. It's asinine to even compare.
 
Mach said:
That's the standard Republicans taught us with Ken Starr and Benghazi though. You cannot have it both ways.
Your objections are noted and ignored.
Click to expand...

Except that's not the standard at all. You just made that up because you have no rational response to what I said. Try harder next time.
 
roughdraft274 said:
Your claim is that if someone donates to a politician that they can't investigate anyone on the other side. That's idiotic. These people do this for a living. Everything they do has to go through the deputy attorney general and through one of the most respected officials in washington (Mueller). To claim this is a witch hunt as people are doing is an incredibly obvious lie.
Click to expand...
Now your making a strawman. I never claimed that.

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk
 
Fletch said:
Except that's not the standard at all. You just made that up because you have no rational response to what I said. Try harder next time.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry. The only reason I saw in your post for thinking that this investigation isn't on the up and up is that some of the people on it have donated to Hillary. Did I miss something?
 
MovingPictures said:
Congrats, you just perfectly described what the GOP did to Clinton in the 90's.

Sounds like the only issue you have is that it's a president you support this time.
Click to expand...

No, that's not what happened. Review your history
 
roughdraft274 said:
I'm sorry. The only reason I saw in your post for thinking that this investigation isn't on the up and up is that some of the people on it have donated to Hillary. Did I miss something?
Click to expand...

Since I didn't mention Hillary in my post, nor did I claim this investigation isn't on the 'up and up', yes, you missed something.
 
Fletch said:
No, that's not what happened. Review your history
Click to expand...
Yes it, stop playing games like a dog.

An investigation about real estate shifted into questions about suicides, completely legal firings of WH staff, and eventually to an affair the president had with a mistress.

That is THE definition of a fishing expedition.
 
MovingPictures said:
Yes it, stop playing games like a dog.

An investigation about real estate shifted into questions about suicides, completely legal firings of WH staff, and eventually to an affair the president had with a mistress.

That is THE definition of a fishing expedition.
Click to expand...

Clinton was elected in 1990. Star wasn't appointed until 1994. Vince Foster was a partner in the Rose Law firm. The case would up with Monica because Bill was too stupid to keep his pants on with a special prosecutor snooping around. There is zero correlation between Starr and Mueller or to the point I was making.
 
Fletch said:
Clinton was elected in 1990. Star wasn't appointed until 1994. Vince Foster was a partner in the Rose Law firm. The case would up with Monica because Bill was too stupid to keep his pants on with a special prosecutor snooping around. There is zero correlation between Starr and Mueller or to the point I was making.
Click to expand...
I know that.

Starr, the GOP, and the conservative judges over his counsel, were out get Clinton on absolutely anything they could, and the investigation expanded into any ethical scandal involving the Clinton's. It had long been known they had done nothing wrong in Whitewater, or in any of the other scandals, but it went on and on anyways, so Starr could keep looking.

Mueller has done nothing like that.

You're all for partisan fishing expeditions, if they involve presidents you don't like.
 
MovingPictures said:
I know that.

Starr, the GOP, and the conservative judges over his counsel, were out get Clinton on absolutely anything they could, and the investigation expanded into any ethical scandal involving the Clinton's. It had long been known they had done nothing wrong in Whitewater, or in any of the other scandals, but it went on and on anyways, so Starr could keep looking.

Mueller has done nothing like that.

You're all for partisan fishing expeditions, if they involve presidents you don't like.
Click to expand...
That's just you projecting since you have no idea what my position is on special prosecutors. Be honest, you want Mueller to go on a fishing expedition. You want him to find something, anything, on Trump that will help you get him out of office. Go back and read my initial post that seems to have gotten you all worked up. I made it quite clear that I do not support fishing expeditions against newly elected presidents.
 
Fletch said:
Clinton was elected in 1990. Star wasn't appointed until 1994. Vince Foster was a partner in the Rose Law firm. The case would up with Monica because Bill was too stupid to keep his pants on with a special prosecutor snooping around. There is zero correlation between Starr and Mueller or to the point I was making.
Click to expand...

Ken Starr was not the first special prosecutor on the whitewater case, he had replaced Robert Fiske.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_B._Fiske
 
Fletch said:
Since I didn't mention Hillary in my post, nor did I claim this investigation isn't on the 'up and up', yes, you missed something.
Click to expand...
Replied yo the wrong person. Was referring to someone else who did post that. Must have clicked reply to wrong post. Sincere apologies for the confusion.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk
 
trouble13 said:
Now your making a strawman. I never claimed that.

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
I'm sorry. The only reason I saw in your post for thinking that this investigation isn't on the up and up is that some of the people on it have donated to Hillary. Did I miss something?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom