ADVERTISEMENT

Mueller Is Losing Flynn, so He Indicts Russians

OKSTATE1

MegaPoke is insane
Gold Member
May 29, 2001
44,691
55,549
113
Edmond, Oklahoma
February 17, 2018
Mueller Is Losing Flynn, so He Indicts Russians
By William L. Gensert

With former national security adviser Michael Flynn's guilty plea likely to be set aside, the indictments announced yesterday by Deputy A.G. Rod Rosenstein, in tenor, scope, and timing, are a desperate attempt by Mueller to save his crumbling collusion investigation from complete failure.

"There is no allegation in this indictment that any American had any knowledge."

"[There is] no allegation in the indictment of any effect on the outcome of the election." –Rod Rosenstein

204290_5_.png

June 23, 2013. President Obama announces the appointment of James Comey to succeed Robert Mueller as head of the FBI.

There are some easily seen exigencies in the Mueller indictments of 13 Russians late Friday afternoon.

Why release the indictments on a Friday afternoon? Friday is the traditional day in politics to announce something you want people to pay little attention to and quickly forget. This is doubly true when it is a holiday weekend. Monday is Presidents' Day.

Friday afternoon at the beginning of a three-day weekend is probably one of the worst times to release something big, something that could shake to its core the very foundation of the Trump administration, because most Americans will pay little attention to this beyond reading the headlines – at least until Tuesday, when they return to work.

The timing was deliberately chosen to ensure that most Americans would be greatly aware of the fact that Mueller had made indictments in "Russiagate," and that these indictments were of Russians, no less, and that there were many, thirteen in all. Wow, that's almost a dozen.

According to plan, Mueller is counting on most Americans having little information beyond that. By Tuesday, I'm sure Mueller hopes many will have lost interest in the content of said indictments because in this world of instant everything, the extent of the allegations will be old news, and many will have already formed their ultimate opinion and thus won't care about the nitty-gritty.

Why indict Russians, whom you can never bring to justice because there is no extradition treaty between the United States and Russia?

The crimes alleged and the people indicted are immaterial to it all. In fact, it's better for Mueller that none of those charged will ever see a day in court. Fake identities on Facebook and Twitter and organizing rallies (mostly for Trump but also for Hillary) are not Earth-shattering crimes, and fake Facebook and Twitter accounts are not exactly rare.

It's not as if Russia hasn't always meddled in our elections. Didn't Barack Obama try to meddle in Israel's election a few years ago? Maybe Mueller should indict him – or maybe the Israelis should.

Oh, and let's not forget: they also spent $100,000 on political advertising on Facebook and Twitter. Please, give me a break – a hundred grand? The coffee budget for the Clinton campaign was probably a lot more than that. Are we supposed to believe that a hundred grand tipped a multibillion-dollar election?

Maybe Mueller should have indicted every American who has ever used a fake identity on Facebook and Twitter for political purposes. Maybe Mueller should mobilize the Army and arrest everyone wearing a mask to hide his identity at an Antifa rally, done for political purposes and to raise money anonymously.

Why now, why this, and why them?

Mueller needed Russians. The MSM will salivate in onanistic glee, while your basic low-information citizen will hear the word "Russian" and assume that it proves Trump guilty. After all, it's been in the news for some time that this investigation is about Trump's collusion with the Russians to steal the election.

Most importantly, he needed as many indictments of Russians as he could get, and he needed them now for two reasons. Reason one is that the indictments will give the media a basis to argue that the investigation is not the "witch hunt" it has increasingly been looking like, and reason two is that he is about to lose his prize: Flynn's guilty plea.

Michael Flynn, Trump's national security adviser for a hot minute, copped a plea for lying to the FBI. Judge Rudolf Contreras of the FISC (the court that accepted from the Obama administration the Steele dossier as evidence supporting the issuance of a FISA warrant to spy on members of the Trump campaign) accepted Flynn's guilty plea. Six days later, Contreras was recused from the case.

The new judge is Judge Emmet G. Sullivan. His first order directed Mueller to release to Flynn's lawyers any exculpatory evidence in Mueller's possession. He also ordered that "if the government has identified any information which is favorable to the defendant but which the government believes not to be material, the government shall submit such information to the Court for in camera review."

In other words, any evidence Mueller feels is not material or contains classified information and therefore should not be released, must be provided to Judge Sullivan for him to make the determination as to what can and cannot be released – no hiding behind the magic of withholding evidence or prosecutor-determined redaction.

Andrew McCarthy, the former assistant United States attorney for the Southern District of New York, who is famous for trying the "Blind Sheik," Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman, in the first World Trade Center bombing, noted, "Sullivan's order supersedes the plea agreement and imposes on the special counsel the obligation to reveal any and all evidence suggesting that Flynn is innocent of the charge to which he has admitted guilt."

You see, Judge Sullivan was the judge in the Ted Stevens case. Do you remember him? He was the 85-year-old Republican senator from Alaska whose conviction for corruption was set aside by Judge Sullivan because the prosecution withheld exculpatory information. The prosecutors falsely charged and convicted a sitting U.S. senator who they knew was innocent. It is believed that because of Stevens's October conviction, he lost his November re-election bid to Democratic challenger Mark Begich.

Judge Sullivan angrily stated at the time when he set aside the conviction a month later that "In nearly 25 years on the bench, I've never seen anything approaching the mishandling and misconduct that I've seen in this case."

Judge Sullivan also appointed an independent counsel to investigate misconduct by the government prosecutors.

Judge Sullivan is a man of honor. Many once thought Mueller was as well. Sullivan is not about to let prosecutors railroad another defendant in his court by withholding evidence.

Mueller's no dope; he knows that his Flynn guilty plea is going to fly away. After all, who would know better that if he can't withhold or redact, he has no case?

He is also aware that without Flynn's guilty plea and without these new indictments seeming to be more than they are but also bounteous in nature, his entire investigation will fold like the house of cards it is. Lies and innuendo can get you only so far.

There you have it: meaningless indictments, for mostly meaningless and insignificant crimes to shore up a meaningless investigation about to take a big hit when Flynn's prior guilty plea becomes meaningless.
 
American “Thinker” lol. Click on the links in your story...this pops up quickly...

“I have no assurances that my suppositions are correct, but I'm beginning to think that at the next hearing of this case, Judge Sullivan will hear Mueller dismiss the case.”

Lol.

Carry on.
 
American “Thinker” lol. Click on the links in your story...this pops up quickly...

“I have no assurances that my suppositions are correct, but I'm beginning to think that at the next hearing of this case, Judge Sullivan will hear Mueller dismiss the case.”

Lol.

Carry on.

Hey potato, I do not post these articles for your benefit, because potato head gonna potato head. But I do get a kick out posting these so I can see your Trump Derangement Syndrome triggered, it is very entertaining. I have you trained like Pavlov's dog, thanks for the chuckle, you never fail.
 
Hey potato, I do not post these articles for your benefit, because potato head gonna potato head. But I do get a kick out posting these so I can see your Trump Derangement Syndrome triggered, it is very entertaining. I have you trained like Pavlov's dog, thanks for the chuckle, you never fail.

You post them because you’re a sheep who is fixated on conservative conspiracy theory blogs and echo chambers lol.

Carry on.
 
February 17, 2018
Mueller Is Losing Flynn, so He Indicts Russians
By William L. Gensert

With former national security adviser Michael Flynn's guilty plea likely to be set aside, the indictments announced yesterday by Deputy A.G. Rod Rosenstein, in tenor, scope, and timing, are a desperate attempt by Mueller to save his crumbling collusion investigation from complete failure.

"There is no allegation in this indictment that any American had any knowledge."

"[There is] no allegation in the indictment of any effect on the outcome of the election." –Rod Rosenstein

204290_5_.png

June 23, 2013. President Obama announces the appointment of James Comey to succeed Robert Mueller as head of the FBI.

There are some easily seen exigencies in the Mueller indictments of 13 Russians late Friday afternoon.

Why release the indictments on a Friday afternoon? Friday is the traditional day in politics to announce something you want people to pay little attention to and quickly forget. This is doubly true when it is a holiday weekend. Monday is Presidents' Day.

Friday afternoon at the beginning of a three-day weekend is probably one of the worst times to release something big, something that could shake to its core the very foundation of the Trump administration, because most Americans will pay little attention to this beyond reading the headlines – at least until Tuesday, when they return to work.

The timing was deliberately chosen to ensure that most Americans would be greatly aware of the fact that Mueller had made indictments in "Russiagate," and that these indictments were of Russians, no less, and that there were many, thirteen in all. Wow, that's almost a dozen.

According to plan, Mueller is counting on most Americans having little information beyond that. By Tuesday, I'm sure Mueller hopes many will have lost interest in the content of said indictments because in this world of instant everything, the extent of the allegations will be old news, and many will have already formed their ultimate opinion and thus won't care about the nitty-gritty.

Why indict Russians, whom you can never bring to justice because there is no extradition treaty between the United States and Russia?

The crimes alleged and the people indicted are immaterial to it all. In fact, it's better for Mueller that none of those charged will ever see a day in court. Fake identities on Facebook and Twitter and organizing rallies (mostly for Trump but also for Hillary) are not Earth-shattering crimes, and fake Facebook and Twitter accounts are not exactly rare.

It's not as if Russia hasn't always meddled in our elections. Didn't Barack Obama try to meddle in Israel's election a few years ago? Maybe Mueller should indict him – or maybe the Israelis should.

Oh, and let's not forget: they also spent $100,000 on political advertising on Facebook and Twitter. Please, give me a break – a hundred grand? The coffee budget for the Clinton campaign was probably a lot more than that. Are we supposed to believe that a hundred grand tipped a multibillion-dollar election?

Maybe Mueller should have indicted every American who has ever used a fake identity on Facebook and Twitter for political purposes. Maybe Mueller should mobilize the Army and arrest everyone wearing a mask to hide his identity at an Antifa rally, done for political purposes and to raise money anonymously.

Why now, why this, and why them?

Mueller needed Russians. The MSM will salivate in onanistic glee, while your basic low-information citizen will hear the word "Russian" and assume that it proves Trump guilty. After all, it's been in the news for some time that this investigation is about Trump's collusion with the Russians to steal the election.

Most importantly, he needed as many indictments of Russians as he could get, and he needed them now for two reasons. Reason one is that the indictments will give the media a basis to argue that the investigation is not the "witch hunt" it has increasingly been looking like, and reason two is that he is about to lose his prize: Flynn's guilty plea.

Michael Flynn, Trump's national security adviser for a hot minute, copped a plea for lying to the FBI. Judge Rudolf Contreras of the FISC (the court that accepted from the Obama administration the Steele dossier as evidence supporting the issuance of a FISA warrant to spy on members of the Trump campaign) accepted Flynn's guilty plea. Six days later, Contreras was recused from the case.

The new judge is Judge Emmet G. Sullivan. His first order directed Mueller to release to Flynn's lawyers any exculpatory evidence in Mueller's possession. He also ordered that "if the government has identified any information which is favorable to the defendant but which the government believes not to be material, the government shall submit such information to the Court for in camera review."

In other words, any evidence Mueller feels is not material or contains classified information and therefore should not be released, must be provided to Judge Sullivan for him to make the determination as to what can and cannot be released – no hiding behind the magic of withholding evidence or prosecutor-determined redaction.

Andrew McCarthy, the former assistant United States attorney for the Southern District of New York, who is famous for trying the "Blind Sheik," Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman, in the first World Trade Center bombing, noted, "Sullivan's order supersedes the plea agreement and imposes on the special counsel the obligation to reveal any and all evidence suggesting that Flynn is innocent of the charge to which he has admitted guilt."

You see, Judge Sullivan was the judge in the Ted Stevens case. Do you remember him? He was the 85-year-old Republican senator from Alaska whose conviction for corruption was set aside by Judge Sullivan because the prosecution withheld exculpatory information. The prosecutors falsely charged and convicted a sitting U.S. senator who they knew was innocent. It is believed that because of Stevens's October conviction, he lost his November re-election bid to Democratic challenger Mark Begich.

Judge Sullivan angrily stated at the time when he set aside the conviction a month later that "In nearly 25 years on the bench, I've never seen anything approaching the mishandling and misconduct that I've seen in this case."

Judge Sullivan also appointed an independent counsel to investigate misconduct by the government prosecutors.

Judge Sullivan is a man of honor. Many once thought Mueller was as well. Sullivan is not about to let prosecutors railroad another defendant in his court by withholding evidence.

Mueller's no dope; he knows that his Flynn guilty plea is going to fly away. After all, who would know better that if he can't withhold or redact, he has no case?

He is also aware that without Flynn's guilty plea and without these new indictments seeming to be more than they are but also bounteous in nature, his entire investigation will fold like the house of cards it is. Lies and innuendo can get you only so far.

There you have it: meaningless indictments, for mostly meaningless and insignificant crimes to shore up a meaningless investigation about to take a big hit when Flynn's prior guilty plea becomes meaningless.
You'd think this will give ammunition to Manafort's attorney on top of Contreras having to recuse himself. Perhaps Mueller is seeking a pyrrhic victory.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GunsOfFrankEaton
So you post BS narrative blogs because you’re trying to induce a trigger, not because you soak it up like a sponge lol. Nice try though.

Carry on.

No potato, I am not trying to induce a trigger on you, it just happens to be a byproduct and it proves Pavlov's theory which is very interesting as it relates to you as a subject, you have proven the theory of classical conditioning again, which oddly enough your Dem politicians rely on for compliance, I see a good research paper here for someone. I find it fascinating that this science could be identified on this board and the experiment was never intended.

Potato, see all the likes in my OP, that is my audience, not you potato like I said earlier, but the TDS and your classically conditioned brain is fascinating and entertaining.
 
No potato, I am not trying to induce a trigger on you, it just happens to be a byproduct and it proves Pavlov's theory which is very interesting as it relates to you as a subject, you have proven the theory of classical conditioning again, which oddly enough your Dem politicians rely on for compliance, I see a good research paper here for someone. I find it fascinating that this science could be identified on this board and the experiment was never intended.

see all the likes in my OP, that is my audience

Lol...no sh!t, Sherlock. You’ve always been ready for an old-fashioned conservative circle jerk haha. “Pavlov’s Dong”

I’m sorry...I’m keeping you from it my bad haha.



Carry on with your audience lol
 
Lol...no sh!t, Sherlock. You’ve always been ready for an old-fashioned conservative circle jerk haha. “Pavlov’s Dong”

I’m sorry...I’m keeping you from it my bad haha.



Carry on with your audience lol

Another classically conditioned response from you...the circle jerk response...what is that now, the 100th time you have posted that? You are such a well trained pooch.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GunsOfFrankEaton
@OKSTATE1

You do realize the requirement to release exculpatory evidence is an element of every criminal prosecution right?

Brady v Maryland and its progeny.

This is not unusual or extraordinary at all.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hollywood
@OKSTATE1

You do realize the requirement to release exculpatory evidence is an element of every criminal prosecution right?

Brady v Maryland and its progeny.

This is not unusual or extraordinary at all.

Yes, but why is this judge requiring this now? Why is this judge suspicious it was being withheld? Why would the courts have potentially been denied all evidence from the beginning when it came to the worthiness of the initial charges and given Flynn’s position? Why did the previous judge not require this?
 
  • Like
Reactions: GunsOfFrankEaton
Yes, but why is this judge requiring this now? Why is this judge suspicious it was being withheld? Why would the courts have potentially been denied all evidence from the beginning when it came to the worthiness of the initial charges and given Flynn’s position? Why did the previous judge not require this?

1. Because they are at the stage in the prosecution where such disclosures are required.

2. Any alleged Judge suspicion is opinion and commentary rather than an established fact.

3. Ditto for #2. That is a conclusory opinion and commentary and not an established fact.

4. Because they weren’t at the stage where disclosure of exculpatory evidence is required.

My bet is Flynn sticks with his guilty plea and is convicted. This order of disclosure of exculpatory evidence doesn’t come close to having the gravity and importance that the article places upon it. We will see if Mueller “loses” Flynn...I bet he doesn’t.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hollywood
1. Because they are at the stage in the prosecution where such disclosures are required.

2. Any alleged Judge suspicion is opinion and commentary rather than an established fact.

3. Ditto for #2. That is a conclusory opinion and commentary and not an established fact.

4. Because they weren’t at the stage where disclosure of exculpatory evidence is required.

My bet is Flynn sticks with his guilty plea and is convicted. This order of disclosure of exculpatory evidence doesn’t come close to having the gravity and importance that the article places upon it. We will see if Mueller “loses” Flynn...I bet he doesn’t.

So if you are so trusting of Mueller, why did he stack his team with Dem supporters and how did he miss the conflict of interest with one of his key investigators? Does any of this not cause you any concerns about Mueller's motives?
 
  • Like
Reactions: GunsOfFrankEaton
So if you are so trusting of Mueller, why did he stack his team with Dem supporters and how did he miss the conflict of interest with one of his key investigators? Does any of this not cause you any concerns about Mueller's motives?

Either he will “lose” Flynn or he won’t. The proof is in the pudding and we will ultimately learn if Flynn is allowed to withdraw a guilty or if Mueller withdraws his indictment.

Partisan cheerleading or partisan suspicions one way or the other won’t change that. I’m not interested in trying to change anybody’s opinions. I’m dealing with facts in response to the questions you presented to me...not opinions or suspicions. That’s it. That’s all. I’m good with that. Are you?
 
Either he will “lose” Flynn or he won’t. The proof is in the pudding and we will ultimately learn if Flynn is allowed to withdraw a guilty or if Mueller withdraws his indictment.

Partisan cheerleading or partisan suspicions one way or the other won’t change that. I’m not interested in trying to change anybody’s opinions. I’m dealing with facts in response to the questions you presented to me...not opinions or suspicions. That’s it. That’s all. I’m good with that. Are you?

So you are ok ignoring the facts of how Mueller stacked his team and the blatant conflict of interest of his investigator? That is not opinion, not asking you to cheer lead. So, you blindly trust our government officials despite the fact all that Washington is today is a giant partisan cess pool that deserves to be canned and started all over. Had no idea some think our government, both sides of the aisle, lack any suspicion today for the facts we do know and we should just sit back and trust our government to investigate itself in a non-partisan manner?

Law enforcement deals in identifying suspicious behavior and then investigating, and then deciding if charges should be brought. So despite the suspicious behavior of Mueller and your ties to law enforcement you choose to ignore these suspicions in order to not be a cheerleader? Seems not having equal suspicions is being a cheerleader to me and not having any in a clearly partisan Washington environment could possibly be naive.
 
So you are ok ignoring the facts of how Mueller stacked his team and the blatant conflict of interest of his investigator? That is not opinion, not asking you to cheer lead. So, you blindly trust our government officials despite the fact all that Washington is today is a giant partisan cess pool that deserves to be canned and started all over. Had no idea some think our government, both sides of the aisle, lack any suspicion today for the facts we do know and we should just sit back and trust our government to investigate itself in a non-partisan manner?

Law enforcement deals in identifying suspicious behavior and then investigating, and then deciding if charges should be brought. So despite the suspicious behavior of Mueller and your ties to law enforcement you choose to ignore these suspicions in order to not be a cheerleader? Seems not having equal suspicions is being a cheerleader to me and not having any in a clearly partisan Washington environment could possibly be naive.

I guess you aren’t okay with waiting to see how it plays out instead of attempting to engage in partisan cheerleading and opinions.

Good to know.

The fact is Mueller was appointed by a Trump appointee. You characterizing his prosecution team as stacked with partisans is an opinion and partisan in and of itself. There is an equally non-suspiscious basis for every act Mueller has taken so far. You choose to believe and advocate the partisan viewpoint. I choose to wait until the end and see how it plays out. That’s not partisan. That is fact based.
 
Last edited:
I guess you aren’t okay with waiting to see how it plays out instead of attempting to engage in partisan cheerleading and opinions.

Good to know.

Nope, not what I said and you dodge the hard questions I asked. See, even you play partisan politics, if you are unable to admit that there is some legitimate suspicion of Mueller based on what we know, even if it is in appearance, and you know and I know when it comes to high stake prosecutions of government officials the appearance of a lack of independence is just as bad as lacking independence in fact. It totally undermines the trust in our governance and laws and any verdict. I guess CPA's are held to higher standard in their audits then prosecutors?

Perhaps Mueller is truly independent, but if he is he was terribly incompetent in how he assembled his team and the lack of knowledge he had in regards to what his team was doing as it related to their political opinions and activities. Sad part is if Mueller really does get the goods on Trump he has so bungled maintaining his independence in appearance that 50% of this country will not believe the findings. That is a fact and that would be a tragedy.

I use to be an auditor, professional skepticism is very healthy, especially when legit suspicion exists. It is a joke most CPA's know how important it is to be independent in fact and in appearance, when it comes to an auditor's opinion, BOTH are required and this standard applies to Mueller IMO.

I want a fair investigation, one that the American public can trust. I have no problem with Trump going to jail, or Hillary. It just appears one parties crimes preceded the others and we really need all parties to go down for legit crimes. Not trying to cover up previous crimes with putting those in jail who are possibly unveiling the truth.

The government is in this position because they have lost the faith and trust of the American people, that is not my fault and talking about it is not being a cheerleader. I could careless if Flynn goes to jail, not family to me. But I do have a problem with a man (Mueller) leading the investigation and if the was the Partner of CPA firm doing an audit he and his firm would have to discontinue the audit for lack of independence, lack of independence in appearance and in fact are both equal when it comes to the public trusting you.
 
Also partisans can’t help but characterize a declination of engaging in partisan based suspicions and opinions as....itself a partisan position. As you continue to do.

You can’t conceive of your partisan suspicions and opinions as anything but gospel so someone not buying in to them (while also not defending against them or taking the opposite partisan side) somehow has to be partisan in your book.

The original article provided partisan interpretation of what the required Brady disclosure means. I provided a perfectly nonpartisan counterpoint indicating that there are plenty of other nonpartisan reasons for such a required disclosure. That’s it. That’s all.

Would it help if I said you might be right? Mueller may end up being a completely partisan Obamaites engaging in a witch hunt?

You might be.....

But I’m gonna wait until the end before making that call or advocating that partisan position.
 
Nope, not what I said and you dodge the hard questions I asked. See, even you play partisan politics, if you are unable to admit that there is some legitimate suspicion of Mueller based on what we know, even if it is in appearance, and you know and I know when it comes to high stake prosecutions of government officials the appearance of a lack of independence is just as bad as lacking independence in fact. It totally undermines the trust in our governance and laws and any verdict. I guess CPA's are held to higher standard in their audits then prosecutors?

Perhaps Mueller is truly independent, but if he is he was terribly incompetent in how he assembled his team and the lack of knowledge he had in regards to what his team was doing as it related to their political opinions and activities. Sad part is if Mueller really does get the goods on Trump he has so bungled maintaining his independence in appearance that 50% of this country will not believe the findings. That is a fact and that would be a tragedy.

I use to be an auditor, professional skepticism is very healthy, especially when legit suspicion exists. It is a joke most CPA's know how important it is to be independent in fact and in appearance, when it comes to an auditor's opinion, BOTH are required and this standard applies to Mueller IMO.

I want a fair investigation, one that the American public can trust. I have no problem with Trump going to jail, or Hillary. It just appears one parties crimes preceded the others and we really need all parties to go down for legit crimes. Not trying to cover up previous crimes with putting those in jail who are possibly unveiling the truth.

The government is in this position because they have lost the faith and trust of the American people, that is not my fault and talking about it is not being a cheerleader. I could careless if Flynn goes to jail, not family to me. But I do have a problem with a man (Mueller) leading the investigation and if the was the Partner of CPA firm doing an audit he and his firm would have to discontinue the audit for lack of independence, lack of independence in appearance and in fact are both equal when it comes to the public trusting you.

They weren’t hard questions. They were conclusory strawmen assertions reflective of your partisan beliefs and opinions.
 
Also partisans can’t help but characterize a declination of engaging in partisan based suspicions and opinions as....itself a partisan position. As you continue to do.

You can’t conceive of your partisan suspicions and opinions as anything but gospel so someone not buying in to them (while also not defending against them or taking the opposite partisan side) somehow has to be partisan in your book.

The original article provided partisan interpretation of what the required Brady disclosure means. I provided a perfectly nonpartisan counterpoint indicating that there are plenty of other nonpartisan reasons for such a required disclosure. That’s it. That’s all.

Would it help if I said you might be right? Mueller may end up being a completely partisan Obamaites engaging in a witch hunt?

You might be.....

But I’m gonna wait until the end before making that call or advocating that partisan position.

So it is a partisan position to say Mueller has at a minimum created a lack of independence in appearance? He knew ALL eyes would be on him, how on earth do you not do a better job? I think you are missing my point horribly.

If one of my employees who is the A/P Manager comes driving up in a brand new Ferrari one day on their $65K a year salary I should have no suspicions of embezzlement? Maybe? All I have is appearances here. I am suppose to sit back as a CFO and wait for someone else to find the embezzlement? I have no duty to investigate? Perhaps he has embezzled and perhaps he got a big inheritance. The company requires one to act on that suspicion. If I had told you he was LGBT, or black, would my suspicions then be partisan? See my point? All of that does not matter, doing what is right is doing what is right.

You are making this way too political or perhaps you just admire Mueller so much you can not admit how he put his team together is a major problem in terms of any findings he has? Americans have the right and the duty IMO to question their government, since when did that become partisan? The issue is not about my partisanship, but the fact Mueller owes it to ALL of us to conduct a high stakes investigation in a manner that is void of the appearance of a lack of independence. If that is being partisan sign me up all day long, we deserve findings that BOTH sides of the aisle and public can trust. That is partisanship? This is about what our government owes the American people, they owe us an investigator that is not so old and senile that is living off his past reputation that went the easy route in putting together his team and was too stupid to put together an investigative team that would not step in the pile of shit called lack of independence in appearance at a minimum. I call that common sense and having professional skepticism.
 
Last edited:
So it is a partisan position to say Mueller has at a minimum created a lack of independence in appearance? He knew ALL eyes would be on him, how on earth do you not do a better job? I think you are missing my point horribly.

If one of my employees who is the A/P Manager comes driving up in a brand new Ferrari one day on their $65K a year salary I should have no suspicions of embezzlement? Maybe? All I have is appearances here. I am suppose to sit back as a CFO and wait for someone else to find the embezzlement? I have no duty to investigate? Perhaps he has embezzled and perhaps he got a big inheritance. The company requires one to act on that suspicion. If I had told you he was LGBT, or black, would my suspicions then be partisan? See my point? All of that does not matter, doing what is right is doing what is right.

You are making this way too political or perhaps you just admire Mueller so much you can not admit how he put his team together is a major problem in terms of any findings he has? Americans have the right and the duty IMO to question their government, since when did that become partisan? The issue is not about my partisanship, but the fact Mueller owes it to ALL of us to conduct a high stakes investigation in a manner that is void of the appearance of a lack of independence. If that is being partisan sign me up all day long, we deserve findings that BOTH sides of the aisle and public can trust. That is partisanship? This is about what our government owes the American people, they owe us an investigator that is not so old and senile that is living off his past reputation that went the easy route in putting together his team and was too stupid to put together an investigative team that would not step in the pile of shit called lack of independence in appearance at a minimum. I call that common sense and having professional skepticism.

Jesus Christ....I am done.

It DIDN’T help for me to say you might be right with your partisan opinions.

Call it what you want.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CBradSmith
Jesus Christ....I am done.

It DIDN’T help for me to say you might be right with your partisan opinions.

Call it what you want.

You couched that in saying Mueller was an Obamaites, I have never said that, and I am not agreeing that my position is a partisan position, that is your label. To label me that you would literally have to know my emotions and even know for what "team" you think I am cheering for. I am not certain how one's opinion on Mueller is partisan unless YOU believe having an opinion for or against him is a partisan position which sounds partisan to me. :)

Seeing that Mueller lacks independence in appearance based on the facts the public has (in my opinion) is far from the point you are making. To me, what I see with Mueller is someone incompetent to run a high stakes investigation in a manner that most Americans can trust, or perhaps he hates Trump, hates Reps, etc...who knows. I would have no idea why he would build his investigative team so poorly and literally not vet them out enough to conduct the investigation in a manner that would build the greatest trust in the findings. It certainly raises serious questions, only he could honestly address that.

Cheers...I have been paying bills and it is time for a alcoholic beverage.
 
You couched that in saying Mueller was an Obamaites, I have never said that, and I am not agreeing that my position is a partisan position, that is your label. To label me that you would literally have to know my emotions and even know for what "team" you think I am cheering for. I am not certain how one's opinion on Mueller is partisan unless YOU believe having an opinion for or against him is a partisan position which sounds partisan to me. :)

Seeing that Mueller lacks independence in appearance based on the facts the public has (in my opinion) is far from the point you are making. To me, what I see with Mueller is someone incompetent to run a high stakes investigation in a manner that most Americans can trust, or perhaps he hates Trump, hates Reps, etc...who knows. I would have no idea why he would build his investigative team so poorly and literally not vet them out enough to conduct the investigation in a manner that would build the greatest trust in the findings. It certainly raises serious questions, only he could honestly address that.

Cheers...I have been paying bills and it is time for a alcoholic beverage.

The original article....which YOU posted....is clearly and obviously partisan.

Your assertion that he lacks independence is partisan...as is your assertion that it is a fact that he stacked his team with partisans whom cannot be independent in their investigation based upon the mere fact that they made campaign contributions is partisan. I contend that your characterization of Mueller with the credentials and history of high stakes investigations and prosecutions he has as incompetent to run a high stakes investigation reveals your partisanship as well.

But yeah....cheers....time to party on a Saturday night for me as well. I enjoyed the discussion.
 
my prediction, this is a bit of foreshadowing.


You may be right. Though I personally have never given much stock to anything Gorka has had to say. Would recommend taking anything out of his mouth with a healthy pinch of salt.

I don’t think so, but I wouldn’t rule it out as an impossibility.

Only time will tell.
 
You may be right. Though I personally have never given much stock to anything Gorka has had to say. Would recommend taking anything out of his mouth with a healthy pinch of salt.

I don’t think so, but I wouldn’t rule it out as an impossibility.

Only time will tell.

I agree. not considering gorka an riginal source on this theory, but he may be signaling something is in line with the theory that the meuller investigation isn’t the hazard to trump many pro and anti trump people have been allowed to think.
 
I agree. not considering gorka an riginal source on this theory, but he may be signaling something is in line with the theory that the meuller investigation isn’t the hazard to trump many pro and anti trump people have been allowed to think.

I get that.

Furthermore, it lines up nicely with my personal belief and opinion that the Mueller investigation isn’t the biased, partisan witch hunt that Trump and many pro-Trump people have promoted it as (and many anti-Trump people probably secretly hope it is).

I’ve said from the beginning that IMO there was enough reasonable suspicion (which is admittedly not an incredibly high bar) to legally and constitutionally justify an investigation and that I was in favor of not drawing any conclusions about any underlying allegations until it was complete and we saw the results. When there are indictments, the burden of proof ramps up to probable cause to charge and if anyone wants to go to trial, it ramps up to reasonable doubt.

The proof is in the pudding, let the chips fall where they may....but let them fall.
 
Last edited:
@CowboyJD @hollywood who, how, or when is it decided the investigation is over? Does it go on forever or until Mueller decides its over?

I didn't follow the Starr case against Clinton so I don't remember how it was eventually concluded.
 
@CowboyJD @hollywood who, how, or when is it decided the investigation is over? Does it go on forever or until Mueller decides its over?

I didn't follow the Starr case against Clinton so I don't remember how it was eventually concluded.

I goes on until the investigative body determines all leads have been followed through...or in the case of a special prosecutor conceivably when he is authority is removed by DOJ or his firing.

Clinton case ended when Starr decided it was concluded and reported his findings.
 
May have dreamed it, but I think Starr resigned and someone else took his place. The Whitewater investigation ended because the Act that authorized the Office of Independent Counsel expired.
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT