The Mueller Report thread

[Goalpost]

Maybe if the repubs lose the election they will at least get to wire tap, unmask, leak, alter 302's, etc etc. Cause apparently that is what the rule of law is. None of this stuff is disputed. Comey himself has admitted that the interview with Flynn wasn't standard procedure.

[Belsnickel]

(05-09-2020, 09:38 AM)Goalpost Wrote: Maybe if the repubs lose the election they will at least get to wire tap, unmask, leak, alter 302's, etc etc. Cause apparently that is what the rule of law is. None of this stuff is disputed. Comey himself has admitted that the interview with Flynn wasn't standard procedure.

Actually, a lot of that is disputed. You just have to get out of your bubble to see it.

[*bfine32*]

(05-09-2020, 09:38 AM)Goalpost Wrote: Maybe if the repubs lose the election they will at least get to wire tap, unmask, leak, alter 302's, etc etc.  Cause apparently that is what the rule of law is.  None of this stuff is disputed.  Comey himself has admitted that the interview with Flynn wasn't standard procedure.

I'm amazed how folks on both sides can alter their ideology based on those involved. I'll admit I have a great deal of respect for Flynn simply from his career as a Soldier. I got a chuckle earlier at the keyboard warriors classifying him as "soft". To many this DOJ will be corrupt until we cango back to the days of fast and furious and tarmac meeting chance encounters to discuss "grandkids". 

I just get a kick out of folks trying to paint themselves as being above it. It's politics. 

[GMDino]

(05-09-2020, 11:54 AM)bfine32 Wrote: I'm amazed how folks on both sides can alter their ideology based on those involved.

(05-09-2020, 11:54 AM)bfine32 Wrote: I'll admit I have a great deal of respect for Flynn simply from his career as a Soldier. I got a chuckle earlier at the keyboard warriors classifying him as "soft". To many this DOJ will be corrupt until we cango back to the days of fast and furious and tarmac meeting chance encounters to discuss "grandkids". 

(05-09-2020, 11:54 AM)bfine32 Wrote: I just get a kick out of folks trying to paint themselves as being above it. It's politics. 

[hollodero]

(05-09-2020, 11:54 AM)bfine32 Wrote: To many this DOJ will be corrupt until we cango back to the days of fast and furious and tarmac meeting chance encounters to discuss "grandkids".

Well, to some the DOJ seems corrupt because it just obviously is corrupt. False equivalencies aside.

[hollodero]

(05-09-2020, 09:38 AM)Goalpost Wrote: Maybe if the repubs lose the election they will at least get to wire tap, unmask, leak, alter 302's, etc etc.  Cause apparently that is what the rule of law is.  None of this stuff is disputed.  Comey himself has admitted that the interview with Flynn wasn't standard procedure.

This all is very much disputed... but also, lieing to the FBI actually is not the only misdeed. Eg. Flynn also failed to register as a foreign agent.

Which is weird in the first place, how people were just fine with a security advisor that took substantial amounts of money from a foreign government. If that were to come out about an Obama appointee, it would be called "making Watergate appear like stealing a snickers bar". By you, probably.

[*bfine32*]

(05-09-2020, 12:36 PM)hollodero Wrote: Well, to some the DOJ seems corrupt because it just obviously is corrupt. False equivalencies aside.

Sure; as I said, it will only be non-corrupt when we go back to tarmac meetings chance encounters and days of the fast and furious. 

Let's try a quiz: Do you think there was any corruption with Comey, Stzok, and the Obama DOJ/FBI leading up to the 2016 election? 

You most likely believe that Obama found out about Clinton's private server the same day as the rest of us. 

But let me guess. Any charges of corruption during the Obama admin can be rightly disputed; while any corruption during the Trump admin can only be blindly defended. 

There's a very good chance the FBI had corrupt motives in its pursuit of Flynn, but that doesn't matter because they caught him in a lie. 

[*bfine32*]

(05-09-2020, 12:26 PM)GMDino Wrote:

Hell I'm not above it. I thought it was some foul shit that Lynch met with Clinton the day before its findings of "Hills did some f-ed up stuff, but she didn't intent to break the laws, so no charges!!"

Now there are those that think it's some foul shit when the Trump DOJ says "The FBI harassed and coerced Flynn and their intention was to catch him in a lie instead of looking for the truth, so charges dropped".

Tomato-Tomato

[hollodero]

(05-09-2020, 02:01 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Sure; as I said, it will only be non-corrupt when we go back to tarmac meetings chance encounters and days of the fast and furious. 

Let's try a quiz: Do you think there was any corruption with Comey, Stzok, and the Obama DOJ/FBI leading up to the 2016 election? 

You most likely believe that Obama found out about Clinton's private server the same day as the rest of us. 

I believe it's all a relatively minor deal, in comparison to what the Barr DOJ pulls.
I also believe that if Bill Clinton had to talk about shady stuff with Loretta Lynch, he would have found other opportunities then to share a plane with her.
And thirdly, I believe there was not much of a conspiracy going on, since things didn't turn out quite that well for Hillary. What kind of conspiracy allows for Weiner mails to come out just before the election? Even if I might believe these are all nefarious characters, I cannot believe they'd be so utterly incompetent while conspiracing.

Then to your quiz question, no I do not believe there was corruption with Comey, Strzok and the Obama DOJ. I don't know that for a fact, but I don't see much evidence that there was. This whole theory is based on very little.

(05-09-2020, 02:01 PM)bfine32 Wrote: But let me guess. Any charges of corruption during the Obama admin can be rightly disputed; while any corruption during the Trump admin can only be blindly defended.  

Yeah well. My guess is rather we have to assume the worst every time the Obama admin is concerned; and we also have to assume the best when the Trump admin is involved. Then we call that the fair view and everyone who disagrees we call driven by his bias. That seems to be your game, like all the time.

Here's what I believe though, that no objective observer could possibly call both DOJs equally corrupt based on what's there to see.

[*bfine32*]

(05-09-2020, 02:16 PM)hollodero Wrote: I believe it's all a relatively minor deal, in comparison to what the Barr DOJ pulls.
I also believe that if Bill Clinton had to talk about shady stuff with Loretta Lynch, he would have found other opportunities then to share a plane with her.
And thirdly, I believe there was not much of a conspiracy going on, since things didn't turn out quite that well for Hillary. What kind of conspiracy allows for Weiner mails to come out just before the election? Even if I might believe these are all nefarious characters, I cannot believe they'd be so utterly incompetent while conspiracing.

Then to your quiz question, no I do not believe there was corruption with Comey, Strzok and the Obama DOJ. I don't know that for a fact, but I don't see much evidence that there was. This whole theory is based on very little.



Yeah well. My guess is rather we have to assume the worst every time the Obama admin is concerned; and we also have to assume the best when the Trump admin is involved. Then we call that the fair view and everyone who disagrees we call driven by his bias. That seems to be your game, like all the time.

Here's what I believe though, that no objective observer could possibly call both DOJs equally corrupt based on what's there to see.

Sure it turned all well for Hillary. She was found to have committed and crime, not sure how much better it could have gone for her. I'll disagree with your assertion that sharing classified government document over an unsecured server is a "relatively minor deal".

But as I've always said. People see want they want. The mind is an amazing tool. 

[hollodero]

(05-09-2020, 02:26 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Sure it turned all well for Hillary. She was found to have committed and crime, not sure how much better it could have gone for her. I'll disagree with your assertion that sharing classified government document over an unsecured server is a "relatively minor deal".

To be clear. I think politically it is a big deal, I never defended Hillary on that one, far from it.

It's just... Trump and Ivanka and Jared and whoknowselse seem to be way more reckless with security than Hillary's server ever was. Also, she is not the only person who used something like a private server. The whole notion that it's "criminal" seems to stand on very thin legs.

As to all went well for her, again, if there was a conspiracy to put all of it under the rug and Comey and the FBI was in on that plan, no Weiner emails had ever seen the light of day and Comey would not have announced the investigation is reopened a few days before the election.

(05-09-2020, 02:26 PM)bfine32 Wrote: But as I've always said. People see want they want. The mind is an amazing tool. 

Can't you cut these sentences out? You posing as the one person who can call all others out on their biases is the definition of the pot calling the kettle black.

[*bfine32*]

(05-09-2020, 02:34 PM)hollodero Wrote: To be clear. I think politically it is a big deal, I never defended Hillary on that one, far from it.

It's just... Trump and Ivanka and Jared and whoknowselse seem to be way more reckless with security than Hillary's server ever was. Also, she is not the only person who used something like a private server. The whole notion that it's "criminal" seems to stand on very thin legs.

As to all went well for her, again, if there was a conspiracy to put all of it under the rug and Comey and the FBI was in on that plan, no Weiner emails had ever seen the light of day and Comey would not have announced the investigation is reopened a few days before the election.



Can't you cut these sentences out? You posing as the one person who can call all others out on their biases is the definition of the pot calling the kettle black.

I've never excluded myself from these comments. The study of emotional intelligence is fascinating to me. We each have a Jahari's window, The goal is to balance it. 

[hollodero]

(05-09-2020, 02:42 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I've never excluded myself from these comments.

Ok that's fair enough. It seemed implied, but I take it it wasn't.

(05-09-2020, 02:42 PM)bfine32 Wrote: The study of emotional intelligence is fascinating to me. We each have a Jahari's window, The goal is to balance it. 

Sure we do. I do however think that this is not always the explanation for a person's view. Eg. I really believe that a security advisor who took half a million from Turkey for lobbying against an enemy of Erdogan's and whatnot (never mind the lieing to the FBI and all the other stuff, of which there is plenty) is objectively disqualified for the job and that it needs no bias at all to see it that way.
Or that an AG who alleges spying on a campaign without any hard evidence; who openly and repeatedly meddles in investigations on behalf of his president; who grossly mislead the public on the Mueller report (eg. that DOJ policy that a president can not be indicted played no role); [I can put in more]; is objectively worse or more worrisome than an AG sharing a plane with Bill Clinton.

I can take well argued disagreement. I have a hard time to be told that my lizard brain is driving me to my conclusions in that instances.

[Dill]

(05-09-2020, 02:34 PM)hollodero Wrote: It's just... Trump and Ivanka and Jared and whoknowselse seem to be way more reckless with security than Hillary's server ever was. Also, she is not the only person who used something like a private server. The whole notion that it's "criminal" seems to stand on very thin legs.

As to all went well for her, again, if there was a conspiracy to put all of it under the rug and Comey and the FBI was in on that plan, no Weiner emails had ever seen the light of day and Comey would not have announced the investigation is reopened a few days before the election.

You have a knack for placing events in a comparative framework that allows these mass differences in scale to stand out.

Given the public evidence we have seen, Hillary's case was properly dismissed on legal grounds; and the more numerous and more egregious violations of multiple laws (including the Logan Act, I would say) by the guy who wanted to "lock her up" are dismissed without clear legal ground by an AG now making the rounds undoing valid court processes and verdicts.

Who can see Barr reopening the Russia/Ukraine investigation 11 days before the election?

No one has "forgotten" or defended Bill Clinton bumbling onto a plane uninvited, with no clear consequences other than appearance.

The problem in contemporary U.S. politics is not forgetting that "both sides do it," but inability to see that Clinton's bumble and Hillary's server hardly equate to 1) Barr's open partisanship for the president.  And 2) the Trump administration's ongoing violation of security policies, once the primary determinant of Hillary's unfitness for office. It's all there in plain sight, going on right now, and a thousand "Wattabouts" can't equivocate that all away--unless scale, legal facts, and law were never the point anyway. It's only when those are ignored, dropped, or never really grasped in the first place that it appears the Clintons, Flynn and Barr are blindly defended for equally criminal actions with equal consequences for rule of law.

It's not the DEEP STATE that is screwing the country over now but the chaotic SHALLOW STATE--the one whose operators openly disdain rule of law, bragging about that, taking pride in it, focusing their base on a supposed hidden coup grounded in rumors circulated and recirculated. I.e., their success/deception follows from convincing enough people its ALL politics anyway, all the way down.

"The winners write history."  "What I learned from Nixon is not to . . . ." etc.

[Bengalzona]

Well, I for one, think some of you all are being way to mean to our country's first repressed homosexual POTUS. Have you thought about this? It can't be all that easy trying to sow fear and hatred and divide a nation in order to try and win an election, when all he really wants to do is run his fingers through Mike Pence's hair while the VP goes on and on about his day of staring at walls.

You guys are just big meanies!!

[Benton]

(05-09-2020, 11:54 AM)bfine32 Wrote: I'm amazed how folks on both sides can alter their ideology based on those involved. I'll admit I have a great deal of respect for Flynn simply from his career as a Soldier. I got a chuckle earlier at the keyboard warriors classifying him as "soft". To many this DOJ will be corrupt until we cango back to the days of fast and furious and tarmac meeting chance encounters to discuss "grandkids". 

I just get a kick out of folks trying to paint themselves as being above it. It's politics. 

The difference, I'm sure you're aware, is that the tarmac meetings were allegations of wrongdoing as opposed to someone actually admitting to wrongdoing only to get off because the wrong he was doing was in favor of those in power.

[*bfine32*]

(05-09-2020, 09:58 PM)Benton Wrote: The difference, I'm sure you're aware, is that the tarmac meetings were allegations of wrongdoing as opposed to someone actually admitting to wrongdoing only to get off because the wrong he was doing was in favor of those in power.

here's the $10,000 question. Why doesn't the judge that must rule in this case consider Flynn's admitting wrong doing?

Answer that and see the light..

[Benton]

(05-09-2020, 11:16 PM)bfine32 Wrote: here's the $10,000 question. Why doesn't the judge that must rule in this case consider Flynn's admitting wrong doing?

Answer that and see the light..

The judge is irrelevant when prosecution suddenly says there's no case.

I honestly have no clue what you're implying. You're going to have to be less vague. 

[*bfine32*]

(05-09-2020, 11:23 PM)Benton Wrote: The judge is irrelevant when prosecution suddenly says there's no case.

I honestly have no clue what you're implying. You're going to have to be less vague. 

He has disputed his admission...The "he admitted it" is a more alt-right stance than I'd expect at an Alabama tractor pull.

But of course a judge must rule on the dismissal.

[Benton]

(05-09-2020, 11:39 PM)bfine32 Wrote: He has disputed his admission...The "he admitted it" is a more alt-right stance than I'd expect at an Alabama tractor pull.

But of course a judge must rule on the dismissal.

Ok... to be clear... you're saying it's going to be the judge's fault the prosecution all just abandoned this case at the behest of Barr?

Again, I'm just trying to figure out what exactly you're alluding to.


As far as the 'he admitted it but says he's innocent...' it happens. People take plea deals because they realize there's a likelihood that while they're innocent, there's a reasonable chance they'll be convicted. That comes in to play with things like Alford pleas. That's not really the issue here. In reference to the case, Barr has said Flynn pleaded guilty to something that wasn't a crime.  Which is likely Barr trying to set a groundwork for not looking any further into Russian collusion investigations once the administration is out of office.