Posted on Dec 9, 2017
More Clinton ties on Mueller team: One deputy attended Clinton party, another rep'd top aide
3.78K
79
35
6
6
0
Just a coincidence. After all Mueller would never ever employ a prosecutor with any preconceived notions.
More Clinton ties on Mueller team: One deputy attended Clinton party, another rep'd top aide
Posted from foxnews.com
Democrats
FBI
DOJ
Office of the President (POTUS)
Posted 7 y ago
Responses: 5
6
6
0
The longer this farce continues, the more corruption (or to minimize it, Clinton bias) is revealed. Mueller should rebut this allegation by listening them, by name, so that they can be vetted by those making the claims. The whole concept of Russian collusion has been investigated for going on two years by a variety of entities with no conclusive evidence it occurred.
(6)
(0)
4
4
0
LTC Orlando Illi this whole commission has been compromised and has no integrity to stand on. It should be disbanded. Every FBI manager in executive or vice should be fired or reduced out of management. The FBI has lost it's credibility and needs a serious cleaning out
(4)
(0)
LCDR (Join to see)
MSgt Steve Sweeney - I'm not surprised that you're not sure. But humor us all. Be clear about your point. Stand by it instead of dancing around.
(0)
(0)
LCDR (Join to see)
MSgt Steve Sweeney - Then I will respond such that even you can understand.
1. It IS uncommon to allow such a thing to happen. Any police department that puts a Klansman in charge of investigations would find themselves under a lot of heat when they tried to prosecute a black suspect. The purpose of an investigation is to determine IF a crime exists or was committed by the suspect, not to secure a conviction.
2. Considering the guy who was fired was praising someone for opposing Trump's executive order, good luck with that line of reasoning.
3. The only thing, here, that is idiotic is your hiding from the facts - full stop. I can break down why it is idiotic in great detail.
3a. You're kind of stuck on that jingle. Get over it. Your side does jingles, skits, and all sorts of silliness. I wouldn't suggest that the mere presence of them somehow discredits your entire point of view, and then continue to harp on them, even to people who didn't post them. But, then, I have facts on my side, so I don't have to obsess over pointless details.
Now, beyond that, you have laid out your actual points, and I have shown why I disagree with them. What I'm wondering is if you're the type of person who is capable of carrying on a debate with reasoned disagreement, of if you're one of those who think that anyone who disagrees is an idiot. From how you've posted here, I don't have the greatest of hope, but who knows... I could be surprised.
1. It IS uncommon to allow such a thing to happen. Any police department that puts a Klansman in charge of investigations would find themselves under a lot of heat when they tried to prosecute a black suspect. The purpose of an investigation is to determine IF a crime exists or was committed by the suspect, not to secure a conviction.
2. Considering the guy who was fired was praising someone for opposing Trump's executive order, good luck with that line of reasoning.
3. The only thing, here, that is idiotic is your hiding from the facts - full stop. I can break down why it is idiotic in great detail.
3a. You're kind of stuck on that jingle. Get over it. Your side does jingles, skits, and all sorts of silliness. I wouldn't suggest that the mere presence of them somehow discredits your entire point of view, and then continue to harp on them, even to people who didn't post them. But, then, I have facts on my side, so I don't have to obsess over pointless details.
Now, beyond that, you have laid out your actual points, and I have shown why I disagree with them. What I'm wondering is if you're the type of person who is capable of carrying on a debate with reasoned disagreement, of if you're one of those who think that anyone who disagrees is an idiot. From how you've posted here, I don't have the greatest of hope, but who knows... I could be surprised.
(1)
(0)
LCDR (Join to see)
MSgt Steve Sweeney -
1. Yes, it does happen, and when it happens, it sparks an outrage. Why is that? Because people understand that it's a bad thing. Well, most of us, anyways. And while rules of evidence are good in a criminal trial, nobody cares about it when you're trying the guy in the court of public opinion. That's what Muller's hit squad is doing with all the leaks. Nor would I suggest finding people without political leanings, however when you have three (so far) that are so far out of bounds as to be politically compromised and one that needed to be fired, that's not just "political leanings." That's 20% of the investigators who have been named so far. Any investigation that has 20% of its staff that's full-square against a POTENTIAL target is a hit squad, not an investigation team. Any suggestion otherwise is a ridiculous argument (see, I can do that too!)
2. You have finally gotten something right by saying that being pro-X doesn't mean anti-Y. However, the three investigators who have been compromised (so far) are Anti-Trump. Just because someone can be pro-Hillary without being anti-Trump doesn't mean they're not anti-Trump.
3. As for this, you've got one hell of a strawman argument set up. It's nice that a lot of Obama's cabinet signed off on Hillary's payday. But how do you account for the fact that, yes, a fifth of our uranium was put under the control of Russian affiliates (I guess that's ok because it's before Russia was the bad guys for y'all)? How do you account for the quid-pro-quo contribution to the Clintons? You say that Trump is compromised by a foreign government without any proof... yet you ignore this. And you wonder why people laugh at you.
And there you are with the jingles again. Your obsession with that is near pathological. Get over it, man.
You whine and fuss about strawman arguments, but your entire repertoire, until now, consisted entirely of them. Kind of funny being accused by the King of the Strawmen. Nor did I twist your words - I just showed them to you in a light that you didn't like. Sorry your arguments are facile. Not my fault, though.
Question my integrity all you want. I know where I stand, and others can see it. Throw your temper tantrum and cry it out, if you must. We'll be here when you want to be an adult.
1. Yes, it does happen, and when it happens, it sparks an outrage. Why is that? Because people understand that it's a bad thing. Well, most of us, anyways. And while rules of evidence are good in a criminal trial, nobody cares about it when you're trying the guy in the court of public opinion. That's what Muller's hit squad is doing with all the leaks. Nor would I suggest finding people without political leanings, however when you have three (so far) that are so far out of bounds as to be politically compromised and one that needed to be fired, that's not just "political leanings." That's 20% of the investigators who have been named so far. Any investigation that has 20% of its staff that's full-square against a POTENTIAL target is a hit squad, not an investigation team. Any suggestion otherwise is a ridiculous argument (see, I can do that too!)
2. You have finally gotten something right by saying that being pro-X doesn't mean anti-Y. However, the three investigators who have been compromised (so far) are Anti-Trump. Just because someone can be pro-Hillary without being anti-Trump doesn't mean they're not anti-Trump.
3. As for this, you've got one hell of a strawman argument set up. It's nice that a lot of Obama's cabinet signed off on Hillary's payday. But how do you account for the fact that, yes, a fifth of our uranium was put under the control of Russian affiliates (I guess that's ok because it's before Russia was the bad guys for y'all)? How do you account for the quid-pro-quo contribution to the Clintons? You say that Trump is compromised by a foreign government without any proof... yet you ignore this. And you wonder why people laugh at you.
And there you are with the jingles again. Your obsession with that is near pathological. Get over it, man.
You whine and fuss about strawman arguments, but your entire repertoire, until now, consisted entirely of them. Kind of funny being accused by the King of the Strawmen. Nor did I twist your words - I just showed them to you in a light that you didn't like. Sorry your arguments are facile. Not my fault, though.
Question my integrity all you want. I know where I stand, and others can see it. Throw your temper tantrum and cry it out, if you must. We'll be here when you want to be an adult.
(1)
(0)
LCDR (Join to see)
MSgt Steve Sweeney - Get with you tomorrow on that. Right now, there's a Long Island that is calling for me. Hopefully we can at least find common ground on that.
Oddly enough, if I do decide to post while I'm drunk, you'll probably find me less confrontational.
Oddly enough, if I do decide to post while I'm drunk, you'll probably find me less confrontational.
(1)
(0)
2
2
0
Not stating as a fact... Just a SWAG. If one had to pick a profession where the members of it are most likely to be politically active, lawyers have to be in the top 2. The other being politician's ;)
Good luck finding a lawyer who hasn't donated to some party and rubbed shoulders with politician's.
Good luck finding a lawyer who hasn't donated to some party and rubbed shoulders with politician's.
(2)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google