Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 20, 2019 10:44:56 GMT -5
Investigators can be biased (seems impossible that they couldn't be given that they are human) but they can still conduct an unbiased investigation. A shocking premise to our friends on the right, that people are allowed to have and demonstrate integrity.
|
|
tashoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 12,546
|
Post by tashoya on Jan 20, 2019 11:31:59 GMT -5
Is it better to have those investigating you to be for you or against you? Would it be preferable to have pro-Trump people investigating him? If you're innocent, it shouldn't matter much. If you're completely clean, you'd probably prefer those who are against you to try to find you guilty of anything. Regardless, as investigators and not defense attorneys, their political affiliations shouldn't matter very much. It's a convenient misdirection that an attorney might use in a trial but this isn't a trial. It's an investigation. There's no jury to convince. And it's pretty difficult to spin a paper trail or recordings where the goal isn't winning a case but finding evidence. Investigators should not be biased for against. True? You'd certainly hope for that but all of the investigators, as far as I know, are human beings so that's not really a possibility.
|
|
|
Post by jld54 on Jan 20, 2019 11:41:46 GMT -5
For those with a short memory:
IG Horowitz report:
We were deeply troubled by text messages exchanged between Strzok and Page that potentially indicated or created the appearance that investigative decisions were impacted by bias or improper considerations. Most of the text messages raising such questions pertained to the Russia investigation, which was not a part of this review. Nonetheless, when one senior FBI official, Strzok, who was helping to lead the Russia investigation at the time, conveys in a text message to another senior FBI official, Page, “No. No he won’t. We’ll stop it” in response to her question “[Trump’s] not ever going to become president, right? Right?!”, it is not only indicative of a biased state of mind but, even more seriously, implies a willingness to take official action to impact the presidential candidate’s electoral prospects. This is antithetical to the core values of the FBI and the Department of Justice.
I submit that in any other circumstance you would be outraged and would agree that this was a serious problem. But since the hated Trump is the target, it is just fine. Trump will be gone in 2 or 6 years -- or shorter if your desires are met -- but do you agree that this behavior is outrageous, if the target wasn't Trump?
|
|
|
Post by jld54 on Jan 20, 2019 11:52:30 GMT -5
No, the point I’m making is even if you think that, that doesn’t mean the investigation is tainted. Can you provide an instance where Weissmann,Strzok, Page were guilty of operating outside the bounds of the law? Do you think all of the people investigating the Clintons did so with pure hearts and had no internal opinions of them? Finally, where is the proof of what you said earlier? jld54 I’ll assume it was an honest mistake on your part that you responded to the same comment twice and chose to ignore this. Can you give an answer here? See my post above re: Horowitz report re: Strozk/Page. And the appearance of impropriety with Weissman, Rhee, et al is major problem. The whole point of not a having a person with bias involved is to maintain the appearance of an impartial, fair process. If persons without bias are not involved in a matter then we avoid the messy issue of proving whether a bias affects the outcome. The remedy is to avoid the problem in the first place by appointing a neutral person. Any person with knowledge of this concept would agree, but again, we seem to suspend such basic concepts so long as DT is the target. Is this equal justice under the law? Bottom line: An investigation should be fair no matter who it helps or hurts. We seem to have a fundamental disagreement on this, however. I have tried to form my opinions without regard to who the target is. I am not a Hillary supporter yet thought that Comey acted improperly when he revealed investigative results despite not charging her with a crime. This was a violation of Justice Dept rules. I am willing to say this irrespective of my political views. I just wish that others could do so.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 20, 2019 12:16:26 GMT -5
jld54 I’ll assume it was an honest mistake on your part that you responded to the same comment twice and chose to ignore this. Can you give an answer here? See my post above re: Horowitz report re: Strozk/Page. And the appearance of impropriety with Weissman, Rhee, et al is major problem. The whole point of not a having a person with bias involved is to maintain the appearance of an impartial, fair process. If persons without bias are not involved in a matter then we avoid the messy issue of proving whether a bias affects the outcome. The remedy is to avoid the problem in the first place by appointing a neutral person. Any person with knowledge of this concept would agree, but again, we seem to suspend such basic concepts so long as DT is the target. Is this equal justice under the law? Bottom line: An investigation should be fair no matter who it helps or hurts. We seem to have a fundamental disagreement on this, however. I have tried to form my opinions without regard to who the target is. I am not a Hillary supporter yet thought that Comey acted improperly when he revealed investigative results despite not charging her with a crime. This was a violation of Justice Dept rules. I am willing to say this irrespective of my political views. I just wish that others could do so. Nowhere in the Horowitz report did it say the investigation was tainted. Nowhere in the Horowitz report are Weissman and Rhee even mentioned, but you keep grouping them together for some reason. Can you provide an instance where Weissmann, Rhee, Strzok, Page were guilty of operating outside the bounds of the law? Speaking of "short memories" are you familiar with a gentleman named Kenneth Starr? Jeff Sessions? NY division of the FBI? Do you think any of those people might have held personal biases against a certain person they were investigating?
|
|
|
Post by jld54 on Jan 20, 2019 13:16:19 GMT -5
See my post above re: Horowitz report re: Strozk/Page. And the appearance of impropriety with Weissman, Rhee, et al is major problem. The whole point of not a having a person with bias involved is to maintain the appearance of an impartial, fair process. If persons without bias are not involved in a matter then we avoid the messy issue of proving whether a bias affects the outcome. The remedy is to avoid the problem in the first place by appointing a neutral person. Any person with knowledge of this concept would agree, but again, we seem to suspend such basic concepts so long as DT is the target. Is this equal justice under the law? Bottom line: An investigation should be fair no matter who it helps or hurts. We seem to have a fundamental disagreement on this, however. I have tried to form my opinions without regard to who the target is. I am not a Hillary supporter yet thought that Comey acted improperly when he revealed investigative results despite not charging her with a crime. This was a violation of Justice Dept rules. I am willing to say this irrespective of my political views. I just wish that others could do so. Nowhere in the Horowitz report did it say the investigation was tainted. Nowhere in the Horowitz report are Weissman and Rhee even mentioned, but you keep grouping them together for some reason. Can you provide an instance where Weissmann, Rhee, Strzok, Page were guilty of operating outside the bounds of the law? Speaking of "short memories" are you familiar with a gentleman named Kenneth Starr? Jeff Sessions? NY division of the FBI? Do you think any of those people might have held personal biases against a certain person they were investigating? 1. The fact that you are even trying to defend the Strozk Page misconduct speaks volumes. 2. With all due respect you are evading the issue of appearance of impropriety regarding Weissman and Rhee. I did not contend that they are mentioned in the IG report. 3. I cannot read the mind of Starr but if your point is that he was biased then that does not excuse the roles of Weissman and Rhee. 4. As long as you bring up Sessions that proves the point. He was potentially conflicted so he refused himself. So too should Weissman and Rhee should never been allowed near this investigation. And again, if the 2020 Democratic candidate is being investigated will it be perfectly fine with you if Rudy Giuliani is on the team despite being Trump’s attorney? Rhee = Rudy here.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 20, 2019 13:30:42 GMT -5
Nowhere in the Horowitz report did it say the investigation was tainted. Nowhere in the Horowitz report are Weissman and Rhee even mentioned, but you keep grouping them together for some reason. Can you provide an instance where Weissmann, Rhee, Strzok, Page were guilty of operating outside the bounds of the law? Speaking of "short memories" are you familiar with a gentleman named Kenneth Starr? Jeff Sessions? NY division of the FBI? Do you think any of those people might have held personal biases against a certain person they were investigating? 1. The fact that you are even trying to defend the Strozk Page misconduct speaks volumes. 2. With all due respect you are evading the issue of appearance of impropriety regarding Weissman and Rhee. I did not contend that hey are mentioned in the IG report. 3. I cannot read the mind of Starr but if your point is that he was biased then that does not excuse the roles of Weissman and Rhee. 4. As long as you bring up Sessions that proves the point. He was potentially conflicted so he refused himself. So too should Weissman and Rhee never been allowed near this investigation. And again, if the 2020 Democratic candidate is being investigated will be perfectly fine with Rudy Giuliani being the team despite being Trump’s attorney? 1) When did I defend their *personal conduct 54? 2) No, I think your overselling it by a large margin and it's largely inconsequential. You’re arguing Weissman is compromised because he praised Yates decision on the travel ban. That's an absurd opinion. Can you provide an instance where Weissmann,Strzok, Page were guilty of operating outside the bounds of the law? The fact you can't answer this basic question is what speaks volumes. 3) You don't know that Ken Starr and his deputies expressed negative opinions on the Clintons? NYFBI? I have a hard time believing you, but there's documented evidence of that. 4) Except it doesn't. Sessions said he would recuse himself in his confirmation hearing, but he didn't do that fully, did he? Also Jeff Sessions: "Lock her up" Explain?
|
|
prhoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 23,523
|
Post by prhoya on Jan 20, 2019 14:23:37 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by jld54 on Jan 20, 2019 15:54:22 GMT -5
1) When did I defend their *personal conduct 54? 2) No, I think your overselling it by a large margin and it's largely inconsequential. You’re arguing Weissman is compromised because he praised Yates decision on the travel ban. That's an absurd opinion. Can you provide an instance where Weissmann,Strzok, Page were guilty of operating outside the bounds of the law? The fact you can't answer this basic question is what speaks volumes. 3) You don't know that Ken Starr and his deputies expressed negative opinions on the Clintons? NYFBI? I have a hard time believing you, but there's documented evidence of that. 4) Except it doesn't. Sessions said he would recuse himself in his confirmation hearing, but he didn't do that fully, did he? Also Jeff Sessions: "Lock her up" Explain? How about Weissman attending the Clinton election “party” at the Javit’s Center on Election Night. And Rhee representation of Clinton? Look up appearance of impropriety as you seem not to recognize this principle.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 20, 2019 16:06:51 GMT -5
1) When did I defend their *personal conduct 54? 2) No, I think your overselling it by a large margin and it's largely inconsequential. You’re arguing Weissman is compromised because he praised Yates decision on the travel ban. That's an absurd opinion. Can you provide an instance where Weissmann,Strzok, Page were guilty of operating outside the bounds of the law? The fact you can't answer this basic question is what speaks volumes. 3) You don't know that Ken Starr and his deputies expressed negative opinions on the Clintons? NYFBI? I have a hard time believing you, but there's documented evidence of that. 4) Except it doesn't. Sessions said he would recuse himself in his confirmation hearing, but he didn't do that fully, did he? Also Jeff Sessions: "Lock her up" Explain? How about Weissman attending the Clinton election “party” at the Javit’s Center on Election Night. And Rhee representation of Clinton? Look up appearance of impropriety as you seem not to recognize this principle. Woah, no way. He went to a Clinton party, how can he be a fair person..... Great point. Your opinion of what is improper isn’t *proof of anything and it’s clear you have a very liberal view of what’s improper in this situation. I’ll ask you one more time. Can you provide an instance where Weissmann,Strzok, Page were guilty of operating outside the bounds of the law? Just one. This isn’t a difficult question to answer.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 20, 2019 16:16:28 GMT -5
Trumpers care about the appearance of impropriety?
|
|
|
Post by jld54 on Jan 20, 2019 17:15:35 GMT -5
Trumpers care about the appearance of impropriety? Not a “Trumper”. I am not a liberal either. I am just trying to understand why the left has become the party of spying on domestic opponents, deifying the FBI and CIA, etc.
|
|
|
Post by jld54 on Jan 20, 2019 17:19:10 GMT -5
How about Weissman attending the Clinton election “party” at the Javit’s Center on Election Night. And Rhee representation of Clinton? Look up appearance of impropriety as you seem not to recognize this principle. Woah, no way. He went to a Clinton party, how can he be a fair person..... Great point. Your opinion of what is improper isn’t *proof of anything and it’s clear you have a very liberal view of what’s improper in this situation. I’ll ask you one more time. Can you provide an instance where Weissmann,Strzok, Page were guilty of operating outside the bounds of the law? Just one. This isn’t a difficult question to answer. You are now into the realm of wilful obtuseness. You refuse to even acknowledge improper conduct by your hero Strozk or the appearance of impropriety of Muller team member Rhee. Peace out.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 20, 2019 18:47:12 GMT -5
Wow.... Eh, I guess that’s a no.
|
|
tashoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 12,546
|
Post by tashoya on Jan 20, 2019 21:59:29 GMT -5
jld54,
I have yet to read in any of this where this appearance of bias/impropriety has lead to actual impropriety.
Spying on domestic opponents is new and only done on the left? That's news to me.
Deifying the CIA/FBI? That hasn't happened. That's a ridiculous level of hyperbole. But, even if it were true, I'd prefer it to President Trump's desire to disband the FBI entirely.
You may not be a Trump person and you may not be a liberal but you do perform impressive mental gymnastics to criticize liberals and defend Trump and those in his administration. You seem to hold one group to an entirely different level of morality than the other and then say what if the shoe were on the other foot? It's been on the other foot. It was called the Clinton administration. I remember how that went. And for far less egregious (legally speaking) actions.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 23, 2019 13:53:33 GMT -5
|
|
Elvado
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 10,686
|
Post by Elvado on Jan 23, 2019 14:37:39 GMT -5
While this is entirely plausible given Trump’s lack of mental discipline, do not lose sight of the source. Cohen is nothing, if not a known and convicted, liar , dissembler and scumbag.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 24, 2019 11:35:48 GMT -5
While this is entirely plausible given Trump’s lack of mental discipline, do not lose sight of the source. Cohen is nothing, if not a known and convicted, liar , dissembler and scumbag. I don't think either party is winning a battle of integrity, but I think they're referring to RG's and DT's multiple public comments telling people to investigate his family among other things. An example.
|
|
njhoya78
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,801
|
Post by njhoya78 on Jan 24, 2019 11:54:33 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by jld54 on Jan 24, 2019 16:04:23 GMT -5
Dog and pony show. Of all he people to act as his “lawyer”, Cohen has Clinton fixer Lanny Davis? This is purely political. Lasnyvwas on the other end of a political impeachment witch-hunt by good ole’ Newt in the 1990s, so who better to use on the political offensive?
|
|