Trump/Comey
- Thread starter Been Jammin
- Start date
Regardless of how I feel about it. At this point it has to play out. I will be astonished and give you props if it plays out with either exoneration or conviction. We will see.
Mueller should recuse himself...he's tainted goods as he was Comey's boss. Comey had to be fired while he was out of pocket so Trump could retrieve everything in his files...and that's what happened. Sessions has it all so it's in the right hands now. He's been in the clintons back pocket since he cleared bill of any wrong doing when he pardoned Marc Rich on bills last day in office in 2001. His past is sprinkled, well more than sprinkled, from Lockheed Martin to deliberately screwing up the hillary email scandal. Looks like he's a slime-ball from the word go. So, things are going as planned and everyone, well mostly everyone, has no idea what is coming or what has happened.
I have heard nobody say 2. Maybe some twitter hyperbole/bumper sticker stuff, but nobody that influences opinions I may have strong suspicions but I'm the first to say the man is entitled to due process. The citizenry is also entitled to transparency.
The Nunes silliness showed Biff and republican congress would "fix" any congressional investigation. He won't release his tax returns, although he said he would. He wrongfully accused Obama of wiretapping him. He fired Comey and then had shifting narratives about why and when. This is what he's done on a public stage, not something his enemies have ginned up against him in smoky back rooms. He publicly said keep hacking. The Russians were involved in the campaign and helped HIM. Why him? Manaforte? Flynn? Now Kushner?
He is simultaneously claiming there's nothing to any of it but he won't be transparent. I'm sorry, but Trump just can't expect the rest of the world to give him a free pass. He's built his reality tv audience and political base on suckers. Fine. Now he has to deal with everyone else, and it's just not realistic to expect people to look away. He's been busted lying so much that he's not trustworthy.
Well he started his thread with Mueller should recuse himself and finished with "things are going as planned", so it is easy to dismiss.
Rosenstein appointed Mueller. If they just back off and let him work, the administration will get some props...at least from me.
While you may be mostly right. What purkey said is pretty dismissible on its face,
What Trump has done with his actions is stalled the Republican agenda until the show winds down. Which frankly is fine with me. If this gets stretched out to the midterms the Dems would have effectively neutered DJT.
Mostly agree. Unless dems are unable to capitalize on midterms due to their ongoing quackery.
I've been asking everyone I know for months and have yet to get a reply. What criminal acts was Mueller brought on board to investigate?
What the talking heads on TV keep promoting he look into are all political ethics violations, not criminal. As much as I hate Trump, really not into sitting back and letting anyone do their job when I don't know why they have their job in the first place. It's a waste of my money all so some asshat can pander for votes.
Months?
In answer to your question....
Maybe treason?
Maybe there are other potential charges.
Maybe you are correct and the only potential issues are inappropriate political moves.
The good news is that there is an investigation underway that (in theory) will answer your questions.
Which is obviously the point of all this.
The order authorizing him as Special Counsel (which is a bit less independent than and appointed differently than an Independent Special Investigator) said investigate “any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump” as well as anycrimes that may take place during the investigation, including things like perjury, obstruction of justice, and witness intimidation."
It didn't tell him to specifically investigate whether statute XYZ was violated. It told him the set of circumstances to investigate to determine if any laws were violated. That is not at all uncommon. I could speculate on crimes he MIGHT discover if the facts went a certain way, but that is all it would be.
in the real world, mueller ain't goin' anywhere. don't expect him to either. so things are going as planned....and it won't be treason. The crap they try to sling on the wall is nothing but a big waste of time. Things are going as planned.
Do you know this because you were sitting in on the meeting where the plans were made? No? Then how do you know?
I'm 99.99% sure mueller isn't going anywhere. I can't prove the rest of the fairy tales.
You don't think it's weird that after months of this NO ONE is coming out with a legal argument that the so-and-so Act of 1798 or whatever has been broken? So yahoo that works for the government says something partisan and there's 500,000 instances of people claiming the Hatch Act has been violated in less than two hours.
Give me your two cents why this is worthy of a criminal probe and not a political fishing expedition. I'm not interested in secondary or incedental criminal violations (thought that is what everyone will go down on).
No, I don't find it weird at all.
I would find it weird if that was going on....from the LE agency doing the investigation. LE agency typical doesn't announce preliminary evidence findings. They refer results of investigation to prosecuting authority that decides charges, no charges, etc. it is rare to see what you are suggesting until the end of the investigation.
I believe there is reasonable suspicion that crimes have been committed. I've already explained that in other threads. Not interested in rehashing. Suffice it is a low standard of proof. At that point LEO is authorized to do an investigation. How long such investigations go differs widely depending upon complexity, number of leads, etc. Conclusion of investigation is usually is left up to discretion of LE in consultation. I woud imagine Mueller would prefer to do the investigation in essentially radio silence. Neither Trump nor the left aren't going to let him. I'm not sure how you measure and decide whether something is "worthy" a criminal probe until the results are in. I analyze these things from an burden of proof necessary to proceed perspective. It seems you're asking me to speculate on what an investigation will discover.
Last edited:
Since the very same individuals outed the Hillary emails conclusions not once, but on two separate occasions, I'm going to disagree on the radio silence aspect of your argument. It's DC, it always lesks
From an investigatory stand point you start with a preconceived notion. In this case Russia influenced the election. Then you look for evidence that backs that notion up. Then you reinforce that evidence or look for holes in it. If you ran into holes you investigate them. Repeat until you have tested every piece of evidence. Once you have this you piece the truths together to form an overall take of what actually happened.
Now from what I have experienced even good credible evidence has flaws and those need answered. To do this you will need to look at the same piece of information from multiple directions. From my experience different directions will lead you to different conclusions. Fill the holes follow the leads. Repeat.
Report writing can be done while in the middle if the investigation or after it us complete. I prefer to write as i go and make changes as necessary. Others like to finish and then write their conclusions.
What the DA reads is a finished product of the process. I think that is probably the best summation in laymen's I can come up with. It takes patience and understanding what you looking at. You also have to have the ability to learn as you go.
Hope that gives you a better unde standing of how an investigation should go.
Keep in mind every investigation starts with a preconceived notion. Think of it as a hypothesis and then prove it right or wrong. There some different techniques of how you get to the end but that is the basics.
Now from what I have experienced even good credible evidence has flaws and those need answered. To do this you will need to look at the same piece of information from multiple directions. From my experience different directions will lead you to different conclusions. Fill the holes follow the leads. Repeat.
Report writing can be done while in the middle if the investigation or after it us complete. I prefer to write as i go and make changes as necessary. Others like to finish and then write their conclusions.
What the DA reads is a finished product of the process. I think that is probably the best summation in laymen's I can come up with. It takes patience and understanding what you looking at. You also have to have the ability to learn as you go.
Hope that gives you a better unde standing of how an investigation should go.
Keep in mind every investigation starts with a preconceived notion. Think of it as a hypothesis and then prove it right or wrong. There some different techniques of how you get to the end but that is the basics.
So one example establishes the rule?
Literally hundreds of investigations without leaks more establish the norm.
Besides, I'm not making an argument. I'm just answering your question based upon my experience. Not trying to convince you of anything.
No, every investigation does NOT start with a preconceived notion. I disagree with that assertion completely. In fact, having a preconceived notion at the start of the investigation taints the credibility of your investigation.
Ok start a homicide investigation. You have a preconceived notion that a homicide took place. Whether you like it or not every investigation starts with some sort of pre conceived notion or you would never start one. What you want is no pre conceived conclusions.
I had a different way to restate this for you I thought you might appreciate.
If we took your notion that there should be no pre conceived notions then we would not be appointing a special investigator to Trump as nothing happened to warrant investigation. Also what did Mueller receive? Instructions as to what he was going to investigate or in other words pre conceived notions.
Or we can have it your way and we can drop the special investigator as we have pre conceived notions that have already tainted the investigation.
No you do not have a pre-conceived notion that a homicide took place.
Let's start with what ends up a homicide investigation. The investigation starts with a dead body. Scene analysis and examination of the body is done. Evidence at the scene may indicate or eliminate natural causes, accident, homicide or suicide.....then again, sometimes it's still not entirely clear it's a homicide and officers have to dual track the investigation.
So no....a homicide investigation doesn't start with a preconceived notion that a homicide took place. It starts with the FACT of a dead body and a scene where the death appears to have occurred. You then follow the facts, the evidence, and investigative experience to determine likely cause of death, etc.
You follow the facts where they lead you. You do not look for evidence that "backs up" your preconceived notion as you said. In fact, focusing on evidence that backs up your preconceived notion has a name...."confirmation bias".
You seem to think your word salad has me in some elegant Catch 22 trick bag of irrefutable logic. Mostly it's complete nonsense.
Here was his assignment:
"Any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump” as well as any crimes that may take place during the investigation, including things like perjury, obstruction of justice, and witness intimidation."
There are no preconceived notions as to whether any crime has been committed, and if so what crime or by whom in that assignment. There is no preconceived notion as to whether there are any links and/or coordination between Russian and Trump in that assignment.
There's just not.
Last edited:
First I like the use of word salad. Thought that was pretty good.
I would disagree with you. When I say a preconceived notion I do not mean that I am inferring that a crime has taken place. I think we got side tracked when I used Homicide investigation. A poor choice of an example of what I am talking about on my part I apologize.
What I mean is there is an event which is a pre conceived notion that starts the investigation. In your example a person is dead. There is a pre conceived notion that that person may be dead. First thing you do is check for a pulse. Do you have one? Yes they are alive discard pre conceived notion. No. Check for breathing. Yes discard preconceived notion. No check for color change. See everything starts with a pre conceived notion or you will do nothing. Start you car. To start the car you have a pre conceived notion it is not running. That's how our minds work. It is human nature.
You are correct you will work follow the facts of that notion to reach a conclusion. Bullet hole in forehead of suspect homicide investigation starts. It is really just a series of investigations of each piece of data.
While you see that as no preconceived notions I see that as the exact opposite. Without that there would be no first step. In fact as you are investigating you will eliminate these notions as you go along. It is all part of the process.
Sherlock Holmes: ‘Eliminate all other factors, and the one which remains must be the truth.’
'How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?'
It is entirely possible we are saying the same thing with our salads. We just have different dressing.
What starts the investigation....what gives the authority to even start an investigation under the law is a REASONABLE SUSPICION.....
A reasonable suspicion and a preconceived notion are not the same thing. Disagree all you like...they're not. I noticed you didn't identify the supposed preconceived notions in Mueller's assignment.
I don't think we are saying the same thing...at all. In fact your argument that you start an investigation with preconceived notions that you search for evidence to support (your statement almost verbatim) is basically the exact opposite of what LEO investigators are actually taught.
A reasonable suspicion and a preconceived notion are not the same thing. Disagree all you like...they're not. I noticed you didn't identify the supposed preconceived notions in Mueller's assignment.
I don't think we are saying the same thing...at all. In fact your argument that you start an investigation with preconceived notions that you search for evidence to support (your statement almost verbatim) is basically the exact opposite of what LEO investigators are actually taught.
I had a long response typed, but I didn't like what I was saying and how it was coming out so...
I will just respectfully tip my hat and say I enjoyed the exchange. Thank you.
at least you said "on it's face". here another tidbit to chew on...
Immediately after doing the Clinton’s dirty work as a DOJ official, Comey resigned from the DOJ and took a position as the head attorney (Counsel) of the Lockheed Martin company, a huge military contractor. While he was in that position Lockheed became a major contributor (millions) to the Clinton Foundation and its fake charity spin-offs. In return for these payment to Clinton Inc., Lockheed received huge contracts with Hillary’s state department. Comey was the chief legal officer of Lockheed throughout this period of contributions to Clinton Inc. in return for State Dept. contracts.
Are you really trying to claim that Comey is a Clinton flunky? If so, why would he announce that he was reopening the Email investigation 2 weeks prior to the election? He could have easily chosen to keep that information from the public.
Don't know if he's a Clinton flunky, but apparently he knew he was not going to be able to keep the Weiner laptop emails from being leaked so he chose to go public. From a timeline of events and the NY Times article that came from info leaked from FBI sources on the same day Comey sent his letter to Congress.
October 28, 2016
Reportedly because he believed he was obligated to inform Congress of any new developments and he feared agents would leak information to the press if he did not go public, Comey sent a letter to Republican congressional committee chairs and top ranking Democrats. The letter vaguely referred to emails recovered in an unrelated investigation that could be pertinent to the Clinton case, but it immediately set off speculation in the press and on the campaign trail.
By day’s end, unnamed FBI sources had leaked to the press that the unrelated investigation was the Weiner case and that thousands of potentially relevant emails may have been recovered from a laptop used by Abedin.
Hillary Clinton briefly addressed the issue on Friday night, telling reporters the announcement was surprising and urging Comey to clarify his statement and release more details.
Also on Friday, Comey sent a letter to FBI staff explaining and defending his decision to inform Congress of the new information despite the proximity to the election and the impact it could have.
Weiner laptop timeline
NY Times article about the Weiner laptop
"Comey was a minor assistant US attorney in the late 90’s. He only gained power and money by being the DOJ official who “investigated” and cleared Bill Clinton of any wrong-doing in Clinton's totally corrupt pardon (for huge payoffs) of criminal financier Marc Rich as Clinton was leaving the Presidency. This is how Comey began his career as a creature of the “swamp” years ago, as a servant of the Clintons."
He's clean as a whistle!
I guess you don't understand fully what "on it's face" means.
MUELLER was appointed by ROSENSTEIN who was appointed by TRUMP and who was involved in providing the since shown to be false justification for firing COMEY.
To suggest that Rosenstein would appoint someone to be biased against Trump...a Clinton flunky...is incredibly dumb.
It's like watching ants interact in a child's ant farm, except in this farm some of the ants are triggered, vindictive, butthurt ants who will bend reality to believe that the Queen is in bed with the antfarm a house over, some believe there's no way in hell, and some seen content to let the facts emerge in time but are also aware that a power struggle is going on all the while.
Similar threads
