Tiberius Posted August 3, 2017 Share Posted August 3, 2017 No, what is absurd is that you don't even question the fact that the overwhelming if not entirety of the lawyers/investigators who we know have donated to politicians have been all for Democrats. Here's what the idiots on the far left don't understand, is at least appearance of objectivity. This is a hugely polarizing topic, if the integrity of this investigation is to have any chance of succeeding there has to at least be the impression of impartiality. If you don't see this, then there is something wrong with you. Mueller was appointed by a Republican president, how much more do you want? Looking at every political topic with blinders on and agreeing with 99,99% of everything from only one side is not being well informed. You're a tool and a troll and a partisan hack of the highest order. I was better off ignoring you but I needed to blow off steam today. Better to kick you in the nuts than kick the cat. Ahhhhh serenity now...... You should never kick a cat or any other animal. If attacking me helps you, good. And I don't agree with Dems all the time. I just argue for the points I do agree with and am not interested in a lot of other stuff. That's why I don't post in every thread like some other posters Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted August 3, 2017 Share Posted August 3, 2017 Mueller was appointed by a Republican president, how much more do you want? = There are a number of Republicans that loathe Trump just as much if not more than Democrats, but lets not lose sight of the fact that Mueller was a good friend of Comey. I mean, that alone should have precluded him from being in charge of the investigation. There really was very little forethought in aspect to the appearance of impartiality. This is a huge !@#$ing deal, and they couldn't have selected someone who didn't have close ties or at the very least that wasn't good friends with Comey? Let's just try to be impartial here for a second, if Hillary would have been sworn into office and someone who provided a conflicting story to hers was a key player in the investigation then had one of his best friends leading the charge against her, and then goes on to select the majority of his lawyers/investigators that were all donors of Donald J Trump, you mean to tell me you, K9 and the rest of the left wingers wouldn't question that? If you tell me no, I wouldn't believe you. Not for a !@#$ing second. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted August 3, 2017 Share Posted August 3, 2017 There are a number of Republicans that loathe Trump just as much if not more than Democrats, but lets not lose sight of the fact that Mueller was a good friend of Comey. I mean, that alone should have precluded him from being in charge of the investigation. There really was very little forethought in aspect to the appearance of impartiality. This is a huge !@#$ing deal, and they couldn't have selected someone who didn't have close ties or at the very least that wasn't good friends with Comey? Let's just try to be impartial here for a second, if Hillary would have been sworn into office and someone who provided a conflicting story to hers was a key player in the investigation then had one of his best friends leading the charge against her, and then goes on to select the majority of his lawyers/investigators that were all donors of Donald J Trump, you mean to tell me you, K9 and the rest of the left wingers wouldn't question that? If you tell me no, I wouldn't believe you. Not for a !@#$ing second. I understand your point and your point about their friendship does make some sense. The problem with it is that Trump brought this all on himself. I seriously could not see Hillary doing something so stupid as to fire the FBI director who was investigating her. After that, there really is no screaming "unfair!" You can only cry wolf so many times. Mueller s reputation is second to none, and far and away above Trump's. That sanctions vote in the Congress basically was a legislative vote to box in the president, because the President has zero credibility in dealing with Russia. So the right wing media can scream all they want that Mueller is unfair, but understand why no one is listening. Mueller has credibility, Trump has very little, if any. If it comes down to who you trust, Mueller will win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted August 3, 2017 Share Posted August 3, 2017 I understand your point and your point about their friendship does make some sense. The problem with it is that Trump brought this all on himself. I seriously could not see Hillary doing something so stupid as to fire the FBI director who was investigating her. After that, there really is no screaming "unfair!" You can only cry wolf so many times. Mueller s reputation is second to none, and far and away above Trump's. That sanctions vote in the Congress basically was a legislative vote to box in the president, because the President has zero credibility in dealing with Russia. So the right wing media can scream all they want that Mueller is unfair, but understand why no one is listening. Mueller has credibility, Trump has very little, if any. If it comes down to who you trust, Mueller will win. I don't dispute that Trump brought this on himself, he is his own worst friend and enemy. He is a complete tool who knows very little about policy and is what I'd consider to be a pathological liar. But that still doesn't take away the argument I've been making. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted August 3, 2017 Share Posted August 3, 2017 I don't dispute that Trump brought this on himself, he is his own worst friend and enemy. He is a complete tool who knows very little about policy and is what I'd consider to be a pathological liar. But that still doesn't take away the argument I've been making. If Mueller is so biased in his investigation that Trump is treated unfairly that will only hurt the investigation. If the investigation starts to look like a Democratic inquisition, Congressional Republicans will come back to Trump. But Republicans trust Mueller, and I imagine that won't change Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted August 3, 2017 Share Posted August 3, 2017 No, what is absurd is that you don't even question the fact that the overwhelming if not entirety of the lawyers/investigators who we know have donated to politicians have been all for Democrats. Here's what the idiots on the far left don't understand, is at least appearance of objectivity. This is a hugely polarizing topic, if the integrity of this investigation is to have any chance of succeeding there has to at least be the impression of impartiality. If you don't see this, then there is something wrong with you. Is it possible for professionals, sworn to an oath of office, to be apolitical when performing their public service? If not, do you question every decision made by every public servant because of their party affiliation? I'm not talking anyone in the three branches elected to office; I mean the rank and file in all the departments of all the agencies tasked with running the day to day tasks of our government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted August 3, 2017 Share Posted August 3, 2017 Is it possible for professionals, sworn to an oath of office, to be apolitical when performing their public service? If not, do you question every decision made by every public servant because of their party affiliation? I'm not talking anyone in the three branches elected to office; I mean the rank and file in all the departments of all the agencies tasked with running the day to day tasks of our government. If I'm honest, I trust NO ONE involved in the process of government. From top-level politicians to rubber-stamping clerks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted August 3, 2017 Share Posted August 3, 2017 There are a number of Republicans that loathe Trump just as much if not more than Democrats, but lets not lose sight of the fact that Mueller was a good friend of Comey. I mean, that alone should have precluded him from being in charge of the investigation. There really was very little forethought in aspect to the appearance of impartiality. This is a huge !@#$ing deal, and they couldn't have selected someone who didn't have close ties or at the very least that wasn't good friends with Comey? Let's just try to be impartial here for a second, if Hillary would have been sworn into office and someone who provided a conflicting story to hers was a key player in the investigation then had one of his best friends leading the charge against her, and then goes on to select the majority of his lawyers/investigators that were all donors of Donald J Trump, you mean to tell me you, K9 and the rest of the left wingers wouldn't question that? If you tell me no, I wouldn't believe you. Not for a !@#$ing second. Regarding the Hillary hypothetical, absolutely I'd be concerned about it, especially considering the years of Congressional investigations she was subject to beforehand. And I'd be up in arms at the first sign of impropriety. But I wouldn't for a second think that they were automatically incapable of conducting themselves with integrity based on what candidates they chose to support as private citizens. And I'd be super critical of idiots on the left who would seek to smear their good names based on nothing else, as we've seen Trump and Co. doing with Mueller. If and when Mueller and his team do something improper in this regard, I'll be right next to you shouting the loudest and demanding they be dismissed. Until then, I'm just no cynical enough to believe them incapable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted August 3, 2017 Share Posted August 3, 2017 Is it possible for professionals, sworn to an oath of office, to be apolitical when performing their public service? If not, do you question every decision made by every public servant because of their party affiliation? I'm not talking anyone in the three branches elected to office; I mean the rank and file in all the departments of all the agencies tasked with running the day to day tasks of our government. This is of course should be painted against a backdrop that a sworn professional's actions led to the appointment of the special prosecutor in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted August 3, 2017 Share Posted August 3, 2017 (edited) Regarding the Hillary hypothetical, absolutely I'd be concerned about it, especially considering the years of Congressional investigations she was subject to beforehand. And I'd be up in arms at the first sign of impropriety. But I wouldn't for a second think that they were automatically incapable of conducting themselves with integrity based on what candidates they chose to support as private citizens. And I'd be super critical of idiots on the left who would seek to smear their good names based on nothing else, as we've seen Trump and Co. doing with Mueller. If and when Mueller and his team do something improper in this regard, I'll be right next to you shouting the loudest and demanding they be dismissed. Until then, I'm just no cynical enough to believe them incapable. No matter how the investigation truly turns out it has already failed. Why? Because when you hire a special investigator for matters such as this where you have a very polarized electorate on a very polarized impactful matter, you have to conduct the investigation with the appearance of impartiality. You have to have the majority of the public's confidence right from the onset. No matter what their true motives are, you've handed the supporters of DJT and skeptics of DC politics on a silver platter that the investigation is a sham. So now matter what the findings will be, unless of course there is an undeniable smoking gun of illegallity the investigation findings won't change the landscape from where we already are. Edited August 3, 2017 by Magox Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted August 3, 2017 Share Posted August 3, 2017 This is of course should be painted against a backdrop that a sworn professional's actions led to the appointment of the special prosecutor in the first place. And it should be noted that it's likely a minority position. I generally trust the professionals in government to be non-partisan, having worked with so many of them and seen it first-hand. I've also seen enough ridiculous op-ed pieces to know that a hell of a lot of people assume that government workers interpret their jobs through political bias - or even more stupidly, adopt the political bias of whatever administration's in power at the moment. The sad fact is that a large number of the people saying "I trust the professionals to do their job" right now would be screaming holy hell if the party affiliations were reversed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted August 3, 2017 Share Posted August 3, 2017 And it should be noted that it's likely a minority position. I generally trust the professionals in government to be non-partisan, having worked with so many of them and seen it first-hand. I've also seen enough ridiculous op-ed pieces to know that a hell of a lot of people assume that government workers interpret their jobs through political bias - or even more stupidly, adopt the political bias of whatever administration's in power at the moment. The sad fact is that a large number of the people saying "I trust the professionals to do their job" right now would be screaming holy hell if the party affiliations were reversed. Not meant to point to a political bias, but to an anti-Trump bias among the DC careerists. Was Comey acting in full faith of his oath to serve or to set a trap for a sitting President? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted August 3, 2017 Share Posted August 3, 2017 No matter how the investigation truly turns out it has already failed. Why? Because when you hire a special investigator for matters such as this where you have a very polarized electorate on a very polarized impactful matter, you have to conduct the investigation with the appearance of impartiality. You have to have the majority of the public's confidence right from the onset. No matter what their true motives are, you've handed the supporters of DJT and skeptics of DC politics on a silver platter that the investigation is a sham. So now matter what the findings will be, unless of course there is an undeniable smoking gun of illegallity the investigation findings won't change the landscape from where we already are. Yes, if they find a smoking gun nothing else will matter. If Trump is found to have laundered money for Russia criminals no one is going to give to sh its about who donated money to Democrats Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted August 3, 2017 Share Posted August 3, 2017 Mueller was appointed by a Republican president, how much more do you want? I just argue for the points I do agree with and am not interested in a lot of other stuff. That's why I don't post in every thread like some other posters Thank you. I just looked up partisan hack and that is exactly, word for word, what it said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted August 3, 2017 Share Posted August 3, 2017 Not meant to point to a political bias, but to an anti-Trump bias among the DC careerists. Was Comey acting in full faith of his oath to serve or to set a trap for a sitting President? I can confirm that there certainly is an anti-Trump bias among career civil servants. But it rarely rises to the level of biasing one's job performance, since the careerist attitude is "We are the government." They were here before Trump, they'll be here after Trump, they don't need to compromise themselves for what to them is a temporary situation. At the SES level, I suspect the opposition is more vitrolic, but I'm not interacting at that level much right now. I do know of at least one government agency that refuses to hang Trump's picture in the lobby (which - hanging the current president's picture in the office lobby - is standard practice.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted August 3, 2017 Share Posted August 3, 2017 Yes, if they find a smoking gun nothing else will matter. Bullshite. How do I know? Because there was a smoking gun uncovered recently and there hasn't been a word about it from the MSM, anyone on the left, the USIC or any of the posters here who have been claiming the DNI as all the evidence they needed. RIP TO THE JANUARY 6th DNI REPORT: Over the past few weeks, three pieces of evidence - real evidence, not evidence that relies on unnamed sources citing unnamed methods - have come to light that blow a huge hole in major portions of the "Russian collusion" story's main piece of evidence: The DNI report issued in January of this year. Shockingly, much of this evidence has been ignored by the MSM and the loudest supporters of this narrative on this board - despite most of those same folks spending the past six months telling me I was wrong for raising these very same concerns... Let's lay it out step by step. (more at link) This is a smoking gun, forensic evidence that anyone with the technical know-how can verify themselves, evidence which proves the only piece of concrete evidence offered to the American people was intentionally altered and manipulated by the USIC before they released it. It's proof that the "consensus" within all 17 USIC agencies was a lie from the beginning. This is real evidence of a crime, corruption, and collusion - not inside the WH but inside Langley, NSA, DNI and DHS. This is the smoking gun which proves what we are really witnessing is a group of unelected officials trying to dictate policy and agenda to an incoming president two weeks before he was even sworn in. Yet your outrage is absent. You and everyone else pushing this narrative without thinking for yourselves for months won't even acknowledge this evidence because you think it's an attack on your political party of choice. It's not. It's an attack on you. It's an attack on all of us. You're just too partisan to care. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted August 3, 2017 Share Posted August 3, 2017 Nonsense Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted August 3, 2017 Share Posted August 3, 2017 Nonsense Forensic evidence is nonsense? No wonder you're still waiting for that "smoking gun", you're not interested in evidence at all if it doesn't suit your politics. That's shameful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted August 3, 2017 Share Posted August 3, 2017 I can confirm that there certainly is an anti-Trump bias among career civil servants. But it rarely rises to the level of biasing one's job performance, since the careerist attitude is "We are the government." They were here before Trump, they'll be here after Trump, they don't need to compromise themselves for what to them is a temporary situation. At the SES level, I suspect the opposition is more vitrolic, but I'm not interacting at that level much right now. I do know of at least one government agency that refuses to hang Trump's picture in the lobby (which - hanging the current president's picture in the office lobby - is standard practice.) This is something that I strongly sense as well. It doesn't matter what politicians they had supported in the past, I think the very thought of such an unprofessional, lacking seriousness, unprepared, unqualified, pathologically lying sort of detestable person that Trump is (from their perspective) is a bridge too far for them to accept. I believe that if given the chance that some of these civil servants would do anything that they believe they could get away with to either undermine his presidency or take him down. These guys hate Trump as much as anyone, because I believe they have lived their professional lives under a certain sort of code of conduct and the very existence of Trump being president is just too much for some of them to handle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted August 3, 2017 Share Posted August 3, 2017 Forensic evidence is nonsense? No wonder you're still waiting for that "smoking gun", you're not interested in evidence at all if it doesn't suit your politics. That's shameful. So what deep state role is Mueller playing then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts