homersapien 11,352 Posted December 7, 2017 Share Posted December 7, 2017 3 hours ago, AUFAN78 said: Uh excuse me, but I think that flew over your head. Perhaps. Please explain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NolaAuTiger 3,295 Posted December 7, 2017 Share Posted December 7, 2017 8 minutes ago, homersapien said: The point is highlight the ridiculous notion that having someone on this investigation team who has a low personal opinion of Trump is a rational excuse to claim the entire investigation is flawed. And I never said anything about good or bad colleges. That's your "rabbit trail". It certainly strengthens the notion that elements of the investigation are arbitrarily stacked against Trump. And no need to research your claim of low opinions - opinions don't pertain to the investigation, nor should they have any part of it. You cannot claim that the investigation has been bipartisan in light of the bias that has come to light. That, is a fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NolaAuTiger 3,295 Posted December 7, 2017 Share Posted December 7, 2017 9 minutes ago, homersapien said: The "overarching" point is to highlight the ridiculous notion that having someone on this investigation team who has a low personal opinion of Trump is a rational excuse to claim the entire investigation is flawed. And I never said anything about good or bad colleges. That's your "rabbit trail". You brought up educated professionals, not me. Answer this - why was the agent fired? What about his actions affected the investigation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,352 Posted December 7, 2017 Share Posted December 7, 2017 3 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said: To think that partisanship within a federal investigative agency is just something to shrug off is sad. FBI/investigative bias is a problem and perversion of law. More specifically, to say, "If you screened every eligible investigator simply for a negative opinion of Trump, you couldn't assemble enough members for a team. That's Trump's fault, not theirs," reflects a true disconnect. The data suggests otherwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,352 Posted December 7, 2017 Share Posted December 7, 2017 3 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said: Opinions about Trump have no place in the investigative role. Absolutely correct. And as far as we know, nothing about this guy's opinion of Trump did influence the investigation. The investigators are professionals. To suggest their personal opinions play a role in their investigation is an insult. All such professionals have an opinion one way or the other about Trump. I don't see how that affects the validity of their findings. They don't report their opinion of Trump, they report the facts they uncover. Facts that are corrborated with other facts. This isn't a popularity contest, it's a professional investigation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,352 Posted December 7, 2017 Share Posted December 7, 2017 5 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said: You brought up educated professionals, not me. Answer this - why was the agent fired? What about his actions affected the investigation? So? Did you understand my point? I've already addressed this. I have no idea what his "actions" contributed to the investigation. (Is that what you meant to say?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,352 Posted December 7, 2017 Share Posted December 7, 2017 17 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said: It certainly strengthens the notion that elements of the investigation are arbitrarily stacked against Trump. And no need to research your claim of low opinions - opinions don't pertain to the investigation, nor should they have any part of it. You cannot claim that the investigation has been bipartisan in light of the bias that has come to light. That, is a fact. I think having any investigation "stacked" against the investigee is a good thing. After all, having the investigators stacked "for" the investigee sort of defeats the point of the investigation in the first place, doesn't it? Having prosecutors "stacked against" criminals is better than having them pro-criminal. Obviously, the real issue is the validity of what is uncovered in the investigation along with the ancilliary evidence that validates it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NolaAuTiger 3,295 Posted December 7, 2017 Share Posted December 7, 2017 28 minutes ago, homersapien said: Absolutely correct. And as far as we know, nothing about this guy's opinion of Trump did influence the investigation. The investigators are professionals. To suggest their personal opinions play a role in their investigation is an insult. All such professionals have an opinion one way or the other about Trump. I don't see how that affects the validity of their findings. They don't report their opinion of Trump, they report the facts they uncover. Facts that are corrborated with other facts. This isn't a popularity contest, it's a professional investigation. But it did. That's why the man was fired. 21 minutes ago, homersapien said: I think having any investigation "stacked" against the investigee is a good thing. After all, having the investigators stacked "for" the investigee sort of defeats the point of the investigation in the first place, doesn't it? Having prosecutors "stacked against" criminals is better than having them pro-criminal. Obviously, the real issue is the validity of what is uncovered in the investigation along with the ancilliary evidence that validates it. Boy, you sure would benefit from studying federal investigative agency treatises and law review articles. Investigation shouldn't be "stacked" period. FBI partisanship detracts from what should be the goal of any investigative agency: objectivity. Allison J. Doherty, The F.B.I.'s I-driVe aNd tHe rigHt to A faIr trial, 91 Iowa L. Rev. 1571, 1586 (2006) "Criminals?" By your own qualification are you asserting Trump is the criminal? Is he being prosecuted? Lordy Homer..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,352 Posted December 7, 2017 Share Posted December 7, 2017 11 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said: But it did. That's why the man was fired. That's not true. As far as I know, the only reason he was dismissed from the investigation was the fact his email disparging Trump became public. If you know of anything he did to compromise the investigation itself, I'd like to hear it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,352 Posted December 7, 2017 Share Posted December 7, 2017 13 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said: But it did. That's why the man was fired. Boy, you sure would benefit from studying federal investigative agency treatises and law review articles. Investigation shouldn't be "stacked" period. FBI partisanship detracts from what should be the goal of any investigative agency: objectivity. Allison J. Doherty, The F.B.I.'s I-driVe aNd tHe rigHt to A faIr trial, 91 Iowa L. Rev. 1571, 1586 (2006) "Criminals?" By your own qualification are you asserting Trump is the criminal? Is he being prosecuted? Lordy Homer..... So, what's your definition of "stacked". I don't think we are talking about the same thing. The rest of your post is a excellent example of rhetorical tar babyness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NolaAuTiger 3,295 Posted December 7, 2017 Share Posted December 7, 2017 28 minutes ago, homersapien said: That's not true. As far as I know, the only reason he was dismissed from the investigation was the fact his email disparging Trump became public. If you know of anything he did to compromise the investigation itself, I'd like to hear it. Excuse me, he *could* have compromised elements of the investigation. That's why he was fired, because of the appearance of partisanship - which severely undermines public confidence in the FBI. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-special-counsel-needs-to-investigate-the-fbi-and-justice-department-now/2017/12/04/5ca1234c-d916-11e7-b1a8-62589434a581_story.html?utm_term=.532a8ea2e303 Even mainstream liberal outlets have a serious issue with the fact that this guy was involved w/ Trump investigation and Clinton email probe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NolaAuTiger 3,295 Posted December 7, 2017 Share Posted December 7, 2017 19 minutes ago, homersapien said: So, what's your definition of "stacked". I don't think we are talking about the same thing. The rest of your post is a excellent example of rhetorical tar babyness. Counter the rest of my post then. Reconcile your take on investigations with the "objectivity" being referred to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,352 Posted December 7, 2017 Share Posted December 7, 2017 46 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said: Excuse me, he *could* have compromised elements of the investigation. That's why he was fired, because of the appearance of partisanship - which severely undermines public confidence in the FBI. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-special-counsel-needs-to-investigate-the-fbi-and-justice-department-now/2017/12/04/5ca1234c-d916-11e7-b1a8-62589434a581_story.html?utm_term=.532a8ea2e303 Even mainstream liberal outlets have a serious issue with the fact that this guy was involved w/ Trump investigation and Clinton email probe That's pretty much what I said. Except there has been no information of how he might have "compromised elements of the investigation". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,352 Posted December 7, 2017 Share Posted December 7, 2017 46 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said: Counter the rest of my post then. Reconcile your take on investigations with the "objectivity" being referred to. Sorry but that makes no sense to me. You'll need to restate it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NolaAuTiger 3,295 Posted December 7, 2017 Share Posted December 7, 2017 8 hours ago, homersapien said: That's pretty much what I said. Except there has been no information of how he might have "compromised elements of the investigation". There is though. "Why else would he be investigated?" - Doesn't that logic apply to Trump-Russia? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,352 Posted December 7, 2017 Share Posted December 7, 2017 1 hour ago, NolaAuTiger said: There is though. "Why else would he be investigated?" - Doesn't that logic apply to Trump-Russia? Sorry, but you'll need to restate that also. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TexasTiger 12,800 Posted December 7, 2017 Share Posted December 7, 2017 Laura Rozen Retweeted Max Boot @MaxBoot Mueller fires an FBI agent who showed bias against Trump...and he gets accused of bias against Trump. This is not a good-faith accusation. It’s part of a cynical campaign to protect Trump at all costs. Republicans hammer Mueller, FBI as Russia investigation intensifies washingtonpost.com 6:32 AM · Dec 7, 2017 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TitanTiger 20,469 Posted December 7, 2017 Share Posted December 7, 2017 56 minutes ago, TexasTiger said: Mueller fires an FBI agent who showed bias against Trump...and he gets accused of bias against Trump. This is not a good-faith accusation. It’s part of a cynical campaign to protect Trump at all costs. I don't think it can be summarized any better than that. It's more of the "no matter what the outcome is, we'll spin it as bias against Trump to win political points and deflect criticism" ploy that's running rampant amongst his groupies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Proud Tiger 4,261 Posted December 7, 2017 Author Share Posted December 7, 2017 2 hours ago, TitanTiger said: I don't think it can be summarized any better than that. It's more of the "no matter what the outcome is, we'll spin it as bias against Trump to win political points and deflect criticism" ploy that's running rampant amongst his groupies. No different than the groupies who protected Bill and Hillary. What goes around comes around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUDub 11,131 Posted December 7, 2017 Share Posted December 7, 2017 11 minutes ago, Proud Tiger said: No different than the groupies who protected Bill and Hillary. What goes around comes around. Proud thrives on logical fallacies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TitanTiger 20,469 Posted December 7, 2017 Share Posted December 7, 2017 37 minutes ago, Proud Tiger said: No different than the groupies who protected Bill and Hillary. What goes around comes around. But I thought they were wrong for doing that. You've become a moral relativist, PT? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUFAN78 3,889 Posted December 7, 2017 Share Posted December 7, 2017 4 hours ago, TitanTiger said: I don't think it can be summarized any better than that. It's more of the "no matter what the outcome is, we'll spin it as bias against Trump to win political points and deflect criticism" ploy that's running rampant amongst his groupies. Why would one want a biased investigation? Other than partisan reasoning, I got nothing. You? Wouldn't an impartial one be more practical and avoid controversy? Congressman Jim Jordan stated "if we remove all investigative committee members with a bias against Trump there will be no one left." Well, Jim I think we see the problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaltyTiger 7,761 Posted December 8, 2017 Share Posted December 8, 2017 5 hours ago, TitanTiger said: I don't think it can be summarized any better than that. It's more of the "no matter what the outcome is, we'll spin it as bias against Trump to win political points and deflect criticism" ploy that's running rampant amongst his groupies. I agree, summarized well. Did not realize that Sean Hannity was an informal adviser to the POTUS. When these facts come out exposing all crimes committed by President Trump I think his groupies will be shocked. Spin will not matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Proud Tiger 4,261 Posted December 9, 2017 Author Share Posted December 9, 2017 Another one "uncovered." Mueller team credibility going down the drain fast. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/12/08/more-clinton-ties-on-mueller-team-one-deputy-attended-clinton-party-another-repd-top-aide.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NolaAuTiger 3,295 Posted December 13, 2017 Share Posted December 13, 2017 On 12/7/2017 at 12:26 PM, TexasTiger said: Laura Rozen Retweeted Max Boot @MaxBoot Mueller fires an FBI agent who showed bias against Trump...and he gets accused of bias against Trump. This is not a good-faith accusation. It’s part of a cynical campaign to protect Trump at all costs. Republicans hammer Mueller, FBI as Russia investigation intensifies washingtonpost.com 6:32 AM · Dec 7, 2017 Yeah and he hires lawyers that donated to Hillary campaign - including the lawyer for her foundation...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.