Here’s what so-called FBI agents really think of you

[mudwhistle]

Now that the OIG report is out, we’ve gotta say the FBI has never looked better:
View attachment 198714 View attachment 198713

That FBI agent is mostly right. The masses stupidly think that Trump is going to bring back jobs that are not coming back. The stupid vote went for Trump and it is amazing how stupid smart people sound when defending Trump.

Hillary can do everything - shes the most powerful person on the planet - in fact, she owns every simpleton RW in the country and they cant stop her, NEVER ,EVER,EVER.

SNICK~

Just like every other dictator, all it takes is one person with the balls to take her down, and she's history.

 

[Flash]

Now that the OIG report is out, we’ve gotta say the FBI has never looked better:
View attachment 198714 View attachment 198713

OH wait a moment. Federal agents have opinions. My God the horror. Don't they realize only someone posting on forums have a right to them.

Having an opinion isn't the same as letting that opinion interfere with your work. Or do you think that every Trump supporter who works in McDonald's spits on the fries of every Mexican who comes and eats there?

They can keep their damn partisan opinions to themselves. It is not in their job description to be Moon Bat assholes, is it?

If a waitress can be fired from her job and kicked out the national guard for using a politically unacceptable name for a Black shithead on non work related social media then FBI agents should be fired for being Moon Bat assholes.

https://www.theroot.com/missouri-waitress-fired-after-n-word-hunting-video-swea-1826765082

 

[hadit]

If it was conducted on official government hardware using official channels, not so much. I would want the people with a lot of influence over something like this to be held to the same kind of standard we hold jurors, namely, that any opinions are kept totally to themselves. At the very least, it brings into question their authority.

Thought experiment. Let's say the coroner in the Ferguson case had a conversation with his lover in which he expressed his desire to find evidence that Brown gave the cop no choice but to shoot him? Further suppose that he stated that he would do what he could to clear the cop. Do you think his conclusion exonerating the cop would be accepted by a public anxious to find evidence supporting their anti-cop animus?

He could be just as impartial and meticulous in his work as is humanly possible, and that conversation would make his conclusion meaningless. Likewise, this "private" conversation calls into question everything the agents, and by extension, the agency, did.

-Nobody keeps their opinions just to themselves. They used government hardware, but as the conversation clearly indicates it wasn't used to proclaim policy or even to be read by anyone but the 2 people holding the conversation. If I use my work e-mail to talk about politics to a friend, does that say anything about my ability to do my job? I'm sure that all cops hate pedophiles, do you therefor accept a claim of bias by a child molester? I'm betting you wouldn't accept that defense.
As to your thought experiment. It seems to be a not equivalent analogy. Because nothing in the conversation in the OP suggests they were tampering with evidence, or doing anything wrong even. Furthermore, correct me if I'm wrong in the Strozk case, which you are referring wasn't he immediately removed from the probe by Mueller the moment he, not the public learned about the affair. In other words if the public, and with the public I mean the right's only defense is that the FBI is biased so therefore Mueller is tainted, shouldn't you be able to point to a single instance were Mueller acted in any biased manner, or show a clear link between the FBI and the probe?
- What I find greatly disturbing about this entire thing is the sheer gall of it all. The president of the United States knows Mueller is going to eventually release his findings. His only defense will be if he can convince enough of the populace that those findings are part of huge conspiracy thereby giving congress the opportunity to ignore those findings. This OP as so many others are a part of that ploy and it frankly disgusts me. After Trump the US will have to pick up the pieces. It will have to trust that the agencies are capable and trustworthy to do their assigned jobs. The GOP and POTUS seem to not care about any of it as long as they keep power. It is telling that you see more and more people on this forum asking for dictatorial powers for Trump, something I didn't see by any person on the left during the Obama era. it is telling POTUS is suggesting self pardon.I don't know,what does that tell you?

The thought experiment is sound. Remember, I said that the coroner could be as meticulous as possible and produce no bias, but the perception would destroy his credibility.

Even if the FBI and the investigators did everything proper to mitigate any damage, it can't be ignored.

Finally, Trump is not a dictator and never will be one. There are just too many roadblocks set up in our system of government.

First in your example the coroner is expressing a desire to find evidence.Give me one example were someone investigating a crime doesn't want to find evidence. Isn't that the whole point of investigating? I'm pretty sure someone trying to convict a murderer wants to find evidence to prove it by example. What is wrong with that?
Secondly the rights claim goes further then that even. It's suggesting that because of the coroner expressing the desire to find evidence. All cop shooting investigations are by
definition invalid because one person expressed the desire to find evidence.
Thirdly unless you have been living under a rock Trump is at least attempting to remove those roadblocks. Congress usually the first of those roadblocks is all in with Trump, including attacking the FBI. The judiciary besides being led by conservatives is also under a constant barrage of Trump citing the Russian "witchhunt". They rely on congress to protect them, something they as stated before have no interest in doing. The press has been another one of those checks that has been under attack from the get go. It's come so far that those on the right are perfectly willing to cite fake news even when confronted by tape confirming the reporting. The only actual roadblock I can see is the military. Although I don't know if they would be willing to go against orders if the Commander in chief would issue them. What roadblock do you see that Trump isn't going after?

First, the desire to find evidence is not the problem, because I specified that the coroner is looking for exculpatory evidence, which means he wants to clear the cop, not find out what really happened.

Second, of course bad apples make the whole batch suspect. When you find one, you have to check the others to see if they are effected too. Same in this case. If two influential agents are determined to prevent Trump from becoming president, it calls into question all of the others.

Third, Trump naturally protests the way media outlets treat him. They make no pretense of impartiality when they spew their hate. Obama did the same thing, if you will recall, attacking FOX News because they weren't sufficiently fawning towards him. Relax, he's never going to be a dictator.

-If you state he would want to find evidence, not fabricate or ignore evidence he still would work within his job description. You made it a point to specify he would conduct his job impartially. As I stated in my analogies, something that has been confirmed by countless judges in countless cases. A claim of bias doesn't negate the findings of any investigation. If it did almost all criminals could get of. You would have to come up with concrete examples of them acting on that bias by tampering with the investigative process. Have you seen any such evidence??
- Lets talk specifics a bit, this analogy thing has served it's purpose in my opinion. The right's claim is because one can find people expressing dislike for the president within the FBI and in one case can find someone within the Mueller probe who expressed a similar dislike, the Mueller probe is invalid not to mention a witchhunt. This besides the fact that Mueller was appointed not by the FBI but by the DOJ, Mueller got the person who expressed that bias removed from his team the moment he learned about it, nobody can point to anything specific Mueller did that would suggest any bias, Mueller was a registered Republican and that Mueller already got multiple guilty pleas and several indictments already. Btw, it is telling that the emphasis of the argument your making isn't that Trump didn't do anything wrong but that the investigation can be questioned.
- On the last bit I noticed you didn't answer my question.

What roadblock do you see that Trump isn't going after?

I see you making excuses for why Trump is justified, a flimsy argument at best.

Yes, we are aware that Mueller has gotten some people in trouble. It would be instructive for you too also look at what they are in trouble for. Hint, it's not for colluding with Russia.

I specifically did not address any block Trump is "going after" because he's not going to get rid of any of them. Nothing he can do will eliminate a press that is hostile towards Republicans. He can only expose and amplify their bias. Likewise, he can't get rid of Congress or the courts. Face it, Trump is not a dictator now and never will be. THAT'S why I ignored your statement.

 

[forkup]

-Nobody keeps their opinions just to themselves. They used government hardware, but as the conversation clearly indicates it wasn't used to proclaim policy or even to be read by anyone but the 2 people holding the conversation. If I use my work e-mail to talk about politics to a friend, does that say anything about my ability to do my job? I'm sure that all cops hate pedophiles, do you therefor accept a claim of bias by a child molester? I'm betting you wouldn't accept that defense.
As to your thought experiment. It seems to be a not equivalent analogy. Because nothing in the conversation in the OP suggests they were tampering with evidence, or doing anything wrong even. Furthermore, correct me if I'm wrong in the Strozk case, which you are referring wasn't he immediately removed from the probe by Mueller the moment he, not the public learned about the affair. In other words if the public, and with the public I mean the right's only defense is that the FBI is biased so therefore Mueller is tainted, shouldn't you be able to point to a single instance were Mueller acted in any biased manner, or show a clear link between the FBI and the probe?
- What I find greatly disturbing about this entire thing is the sheer gall of it all. The president of the United States knows Mueller is going to eventually release his findings. His only defense will be if he can convince enough of the populace that those findings are part of huge conspiracy thereby giving congress the opportunity to ignore those findings. This OP as so many others are a part of that ploy and it frankly disgusts me. After Trump the US will have to pick up the pieces. It will have to trust that the agencies are capable and trustworthy to do their assigned jobs. The GOP and POTUS seem to not care about any of it as long as they keep power. It is telling that you see more and more people on this forum asking for dictatorial powers for Trump, something I didn't see by any person on the left during the Obama era. it is telling POTUS is suggesting self pardon.I don't know,what does that tell you?

The thought experiment is sound. Remember, I said that the coroner could be as meticulous as possible and produce no bias, but the perception would destroy his credibility.

Even if the FBI and the investigators did everything proper to mitigate any damage, it can't be ignored.

Finally, Trump is not a dictator and never will be one. There are just too many roadblocks set up in our system of government.

First in your example the coroner is expressing a desire to find evidence.Give me one example were someone investigating a crime doesn't want to find evidence. Isn't that the whole point of investigating? I'm pretty sure someone trying to convict a murderer wants to find evidence to prove it by example. What is wrong with that?
Secondly the rights claim goes further then that even. It's suggesting that because of the coroner expressing the desire to find evidence. All cop shooting investigations are by
definition invalid because one person expressed the desire to find evidence.
Thirdly unless you have been living under a rock Trump is at least attempting to remove those roadblocks. Congress usually the first of those roadblocks is all in with Trump, including attacking the FBI. The judiciary besides being led by conservatives is also under a constant barrage of Trump citing the Russian "witchhunt". They rely on congress to protect them, something they as stated before have no interest in doing. The press has been another one of those checks that has been under attack from the get go. It's come so far that those on the right are perfectly willing to cite fake news even when confronted by tape confirming the reporting. The only actual roadblock I can see is the military. Although I don't know if they would be willing to go against orders if the Commander in chief would issue them. What roadblock do you see that Trump isn't going after?

First, the desire to find evidence is not the problem, because I specified that the coroner is looking for exculpatory evidence, which means he wants to clear the cop, not find out what really happened.

Second, of course bad apples make the whole batch suspect. When you find one, you have to check the others to see if they are effected too. Same in this case. If two influential agents are determined to prevent Trump from becoming president, it calls into question all of the others.

Third, Trump naturally protests the way media outlets treat him. They make no pretense of impartiality when they spew their hate. Obama did the same thing, if you will recall, attacking FOX News because they weren't sufficiently fawning towards him. Relax, he's never going to be a dictator.

-If you state he would want to find evidence, not fabricate or ignore evidence he still would work within his job description. You made it a point to specify he would conduct his job impartially. As I stated in my analogies, something that has been confirmed by countless judges in countless cases. A claim of bias doesn't negate the findings of any investigation. If it did almost all criminals could get of. You would have to come up with concrete examples of them acting on that bias by tampering with the investigative process. Have you seen any such evidence??
- Lets talk specifics a bit, this analogy thing has served it's purpose in my opinion. The right's claim is because one can find people expressing dislike for the president within the FBI and in one case can find someone within the Mueller probe who expressed a similar dislike, the Mueller probe is invalid not to mention a witchhunt. This besides the fact that Mueller was appointed not by the FBI but by the DOJ, Mueller got the person who expressed that bias removed from his team the moment he learned about it, nobody can point to anything specific Mueller did that would suggest any bias, Mueller was a registered Republican and that Mueller already got multiple guilty pleas and several indictments already. Btw, it is telling that the emphasis of the argument your making isn't that Trump didn't do anything wrong but that the investigation can be questioned.
- On the last bit I noticed you didn't answer my question.

What roadblock do you see that Trump isn't going after?

I see you making excuses for why Trump is justified, a flimsy argument at best.

Yes, we are aware that Mueller has gotten some people in trouble. It would be instructive for you too also look at what they are in trouble for. Hint, it's not for colluding with Russia.

I specifically did not address any block Trump is "going after" because he's not going to get rid of any of them. Nothing he can do will eliminate a press that is hostile towards Republicans. He can only expose and amplify their bias. Likewise, he can't get rid of Congress or the courts. Face it, Trump is not a dictator now and never will be. THAT'S why I ignored your statement.

https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/967231/download
Since nowhere in Muellers mandate did the word collusion ever appear, saying the people he got in trouble aren't charged with collusion seems kind of a strawman argument doesn't it? What people are charged with is money laundering, lying to federal agents about Russian contacts, witness tampering, identity fraud,not to mention Russian companies involved directly in election tampering. Mueller isn't done but with the information we do have, ( the Trump tower meeting, Trump going on camera saying he fired Comey over the Russian thing) it is entirely likely that charges will be leveled at POTUS and/or his family. The best you can do is claim bias, without being able to establish that that supposed bias influenced the investigation. Not only is it a bad argument, it's also an argument that history won't thank the GOP for.
-You seem to at least attempt to make lucid arguments, so I implore you to look at the strength of your argument. The FBI and Mueller hated the president of the United States to such an extent and they were so biased that they didn't leak, that they were looking at his campaign for possible Russian contacts, and released a few weeks before the elections that they were looking at additional emails from Hillary. Either they are the most inept conspirators in the history of the world, or your argument sucks, what do you think is more likely?

 

[basquebromance]

viscious. We The Trump Supporters are the greatest supporters in the world. we are hard-working, we are the smartest, we're loyal.

Trump has the bikers, he has the construction workers, he also has the FBI. by the way, you go into the FBI and take of poll of the real FBI, not the scum on top, not Comey and his den of thieves, they're all for Trump!

 

[hadit]

The thought experiment is sound. Remember, I said that the coroner could be as meticulous as possible and produce no bias, but the perception would destroy his credibility.

Even if the FBI and the investigators did everything proper to mitigate any damage, it can't be ignored.

Finally, Trump is not a dictator and never will be one. There are just too many roadblocks set up in our system of government.

First in your example the coroner is expressing a desire to find evidence.Give me one example were someone investigating a crime doesn't want to find evidence. Isn't that the whole point of investigating? I'm pretty sure someone trying to convict a murderer wants to find evidence to prove it by example. What is wrong with that?
Secondly the rights claim goes further then that even. It's suggesting that because of the coroner expressing the desire to find evidence. All cop shooting investigations are by
definition invalid because one person expressed the desire to find evidence.
Thirdly unless you have been living under a rock Trump is at least attempting to remove those roadblocks. Congress usually the first of those roadblocks is all in with Trump, including attacking the FBI. The judiciary besides being led by conservatives is also under a constant barrage of Trump citing the Russian "witchhunt". They rely on congress to protect them, something they as stated before have no interest in doing. The press has been another one of those checks that has been under attack from the get go. It's come so far that those on the right are perfectly willing to cite fake news even when confronted by tape confirming the reporting. The only actual roadblock I can see is the military. Although I don't know if they would be willing to go against orders if the Commander in chief would issue them. What roadblock do you see that Trump isn't going after?

First, the desire to find evidence is not the problem, because I specified that the coroner is looking for exculpatory evidence, which means he wants to clear the cop, not find out what really happened.

Second, of course bad apples make the whole batch suspect. When you find one, you have to check the others to see if they are effected too. Same in this case. If two influential agents are determined to prevent Trump from becoming president, it calls into question all of the others.

Third, Trump naturally protests the way media outlets treat him. They make no pretense of impartiality when they spew their hate. Obama did the same thing, if you will recall, attacking FOX News because they weren't sufficiently fawning towards him. Relax, he's never going to be a dictator.

-If you state he would want to find evidence, not fabricate or ignore evidence he still would work within his job description. You made it a point to specify he would conduct his job impartially. As I stated in my analogies, something that has been confirmed by countless judges in countless cases. A claim of bias doesn't negate the findings of any investigation. If it did almost all criminals could get of. You would have to come up with concrete examples of them acting on that bias by tampering with the investigative process. Have you seen any such evidence??
- Lets talk specifics a bit, this analogy thing has served it's purpose in my opinion. The right's claim is because one can find people expressing dislike for the president within the FBI and in one case can find someone within the Mueller probe who expressed a similar dislike, the Mueller probe is invalid not to mention a witchhunt. This besides the fact that Mueller was appointed not by the FBI but by the DOJ, Mueller got the person who expressed that bias removed from his team the moment he learned about it, nobody can point to anything specific Mueller did that would suggest any bias, Mueller was a registered Republican and that Mueller already got multiple guilty pleas and several indictments already. Btw, it is telling that the emphasis of the argument your making isn't that Trump didn't do anything wrong but that the investigation can be questioned.
- On the last bit I noticed you didn't answer my question.

What roadblock do you see that Trump isn't going after?

I see you making excuses for why Trump is justified, a flimsy argument at best.

Yes, we are aware that Mueller has gotten some people in trouble. It would be instructive for you too also look at what they are in trouble for. Hint, it's not for colluding with Russia.

I specifically did not address any block Trump is "going after" because he's not going to get rid of any of them. Nothing he can do will eliminate a press that is hostile towards Republicans. He can only expose and amplify their bias. Likewise, he can't get rid of Congress or the courts. Face it, Trump is not a dictator now and never will be. THAT'S why I ignored your statement.

https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/967231/download
Since nowhere in Muellers mandate did the word collusion ever appear, saying the people he got in trouble aren't charged with collusion seems kind of a strawman argument doesn't it? What people are charged with is money laundering, lying to federal agents about Russian contacts, witness tampering, identity fraud,not to mention Russian companies involved directly in election tampering. Mueller isn't done but with the information we do have, ( the Trump tower meeting, Trump going on camera saying he fired Comey over the Russian thing) it is entirely likely that charges will be leveled at POTUS and/or his family. The best you can do is claim bias, without being able to establish that that supposed bias influenced the investigation. Not only is it a bad argument, it's also an argument that history won't thank the GOP for.
-You seem to at least attempt to make lucid arguments, so I implore you to look at the strength of your argument. The FBI and Mueller hated the president of the United States to such an extent and they were so biased that they didn't leak, that they were looking at his campaign for possible Russian contacts, and released a few weeks before the elections that they were looking at additional emails from Hillary. Either they are the most inept conspirators in the history of the world, or your argument sucks, what do you think is more likely?

Nowhere have I claimed the FBI is biased. What I have done is punctured the myth that the revealed text and email communications mean nothing. They mean a lot when it comes to compete faith in our law enforcement institutions. As for Mueller, sure his investigation is wide open and has few boundaries, but the whole purpose behind it has always been to undermine or destroy the Trump presidency, and we've been told many times that Russian collusion is the path by which that will be accomplished, so to claim the troubles Mueller has succeeded in creating so far as evidence of something or other is a bit weak.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

Foolishly expressing said opinions when you are in a position of power and expected to maintain some semblance of impartiality undermines the authority of your actions.

Or on a government issued communication device

 

[forkup]

First in your example the coroner is expressing a desire to find evidence.Give me one example were someone investigating a crime doesn't want to find evidence. Isn't that the whole point of investigating? I'm pretty sure someone trying to convict a murderer wants to find evidence to prove it by example. What is wrong with that?
Secondly the rights claim goes further then that even. It's suggesting that because of the coroner expressing the desire to find evidence. All cop shooting investigations are by
definition invalid because one person expressed the desire to find evidence.
Thirdly unless you have been living under a rock Trump is at least attempting to remove those roadblocks. Congress usually the first of those roadblocks is all in with Trump, including attacking the FBI. The judiciary besides being led by conservatives is also under a constant barrage of Trump citing the Russian "witchhunt". They rely on congress to protect them, something they as stated before have no interest in doing. The press has been another one of those checks that has been under attack from the get go. It's come so far that those on the right are perfectly willing to cite fake news even when confronted by tape confirming the reporting. The only actual roadblock I can see is the military. Although I don't know if they would be willing to go against orders if the Commander in chief would issue them. What roadblock do you see that Trump isn't going after?

First, the desire to find evidence is not the problem, because I specified that the coroner is looking for exculpatory evidence, which means he wants to clear the cop, not find out what really happened.

Second, of course bad apples make the whole batch suspect. When you find one, you have to check the others to see if they are effected too. Same in this case. If two influential agents are determined to prevent Trump from becoming president, it calls into question all of the others.

Third, Trump naturally protests the way media outlets treat him. They make no pretense of impartiality when they spew their hate. Obama did the same thing, if you will recall, attacking FOX News because they weren't sufficiently fawning towards him. Relax, he's never going to be a dictator.

-If you state he would want to find evidence, not fabricate or ignore evidence he still would work within his job description. You made it a point to specify he would conduct his job impartially. As I stated in my analogies, something that has been confirmed by countless judges in countless cases. A claim of bias doesn't negate the findings of any investigation. If it did almost all criminals could get of. You would have to come up with concrete examples of them acting on that bias by tampering with the investigative process. Have you seen any such evidence??
- Lets talk specifics a bit, this analogy thing has served it's purpose in my opinion. The right's claim is because one can find people expressing dislike for the president within the FBI and in one case can find someone within the Mueller probe who expressed a similar dislike, the Mueller probe is invalid not to mention a witchhunt. This besides the fact that Mueller was appointed not by the FBI but by the DOJ, Mueller got the person who expressed that bias removed from his team the moment he learned about it, nobody can point to anything specific Mueller did that would suggest any bias, Mueller was a registered Republican and that Mueller already got multiple guilty pleas and several indictments already. Btw, it is telling that the emphasis of the argument your making isn't that Trump didn't do anything wrong but that the investigation can be questioned.
- On the last bit I noticed you didn't answer my question.

What roadblock do you see that Trump isn't going after?

I see you making excuses for why Trump is justified, a flimsy argument at best.

Yes, we are aware that Mueller has gotten some people in trouble. It would be instructive for you too also look at what they are in trouble for. Hint, it's not for colluding with Russia.

I specifically did not address any block Trump is "going after" because he's not going to get rid of any of them. Nothing he can do will eliminate a press that is hostile towards Republicans. He can only expose and amplify their bias. Likewise, he can't get rid of Congress or the courts. Face it, Trump is not a dictator now and never will be. THAT'S why I ignored your statement.

https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/967231/download
Since nowhere in Muellers mandate did the word collusion ever appear, saying the people he got in trouble aren't charged with collusion seems kind of a strawman argument doesn't it? What people are charged with is money laundering, lying to federal agents about Russian contacts, witness tampering, identity fraud,not to mention Russian companies involved directly in election tampering. Mueller isn't done but with the information we do have, ( the Trump tower meeting, Trump going on camera saying he fired Comey over the Russian thing) it is entirely likely that charges will be leveled at POTUS and/or his family. The best you can do is claim bias, without being able to establish that that supposed bias influenced the investigation. Not only is it a bad argument, it's also an argument that history won't thank the GOP for.
-You seem to at least attempt to make lucid arguments, so I implore you to look at the strength of your argument. The FBI and Mueller hated the president of the United States to such an extent and they were so biased that they didn't leak, that they were looking at his campaign for possible Russian contacts, and released a few weeks before the elections that they were looking at additional emails from Hillary. Either they are the most inept conspirators in the history of the world, or your argument sucks, what do you think is more likely?

Nowhere have I claimed the FBI is biased. What I have done is punctured the myth that the revealed text and email communications mean nothing. They mean a lot when it comes to compete faith in our law enforcement institutions. As for Mueller, sure his investigation is wide open and has few boundaries, but the whole purpose behind it has always been to undermine or destroy the Trump presidency, and we've been told many times that Russian collusion is the path by which that will be accomplished, so to claim the troubles Mueller has succeeded in creating so far as evidence of something or other is a bit weak.

You are right it does mean something. What you have done is made clear that the populace will question the law enforcement agencies,as long as the GOP,Trump and the right in general keeps on yelling bias. As I pointed out, besides it being a bad argument on merit, it's also an argument that no judge would accept. If you actually do not believe that the FBI is biased but rather argue "look it's working, so hurrah" that is even worse. Because that would mean you support destroying the credibility of the FBI for partisan reasons. Cynical to say the least. And in a way further proof of my dictator argument since this would mean that you and by extension the GOP and everybody on the right would put Trump before country.

 

[basquebromance]

the Mueller investigation needs to be investigated the way the Trump folks have been investigated!

 

[Aldo Raine]

viscious. We The Trump Supporters are the greatest supporters in the world. we are hard-working, we are the smartest, we're loyal.

Trump has the bikers, he has the construction workers, he also has the FBI. by the way, you go into the FBI and take of poll of the real FBI, not the scum on top, not Comey and his den of thieves, they're all for Trump!

Most construction workers are not for Rump, in fact they think he is a blowhard buffoon!

 

[hadit]

First, the desire to find evidence is not the problem, because I specified that the coroner is looking for exculpatory evidence, which means he wants to clear the cop, not find out what really happened.

Second, of course bad apples make the whole batch suspect. When you find one, you have to check the others to see if they are effected too. Same in this case. If two influential agents are determined to prevent Trump from becoming president, it calls into question all of the others.

Third, Trump naturally protests the way media outlets treat him. They make no pretense of impartiality when they spew their hate. Obama did the same thing, if you will recall, attacking FOX News because they weren't sufficiently fawning towards him. Relax, he's never going to be a dictator.

-If you state he would want to find evidence, not fabricate or ignore evidence he still would work within his job description. You made it a point to specify he would conduct his job impartially. As I stated in my analogies, something that has been confirmed by countless judges in countless cases. A claim of bias doesn't negate the findings of any investigation. If it did almost all criminals could get of. You would have to come up with concrete examples of them acting on that bias by tampering with the investigative process. Have you seen any such evidence??
- Lets talk specifics a bit, this analogy thing has served it's purpose in my opinion. The right's claim is because one can find people expressing dislike for the president within the FBI and in one case can find someone within the Mueller probe who expressed a similar dislike, the Mueller probe is invalid not to mention a witchhunt. This besides the fact that Mueller was appointed not by the FBI but by the DOJ, Mueller got the person who expressed that bias removed from his team the moment he learned about it, nobody can point to anything specific Mueller did that would suggest any bias, Mueller was a registered Republican and that Mueller already got multiple guilty pleas and several indictments already. Btw, it is telling that the emphasis of the argument your making isn't that Trump didn't do anything wrong but that the investigation can be questioned.
- On the last bit I noticed you didn't answer my question.

What roadblock do you see that Trump isn't going after?

I see you making excuses for why Trump is justified, a flimsy argument at best.

Yes, we are aware that Mueller has gotten some people in trouble. It would be instructive for you too also look at what they are in trouble for. Hint, it's not for colluding with Russia.

I specifically did not address any block Trump is "going after" because he's not going to get rid of any of them. Nothing he can do will eliminate a press that is hostile towards Republicans. He can only expose and amplify their bias. Likewise, he can't get rid of Congress or the courts. Face it, Trump is not a dictator now and never will be. THAT'S why I ignored your statement.

https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/967231/download
Since nowhere in Muellers mandate did the word collusion ever appear, saying the people he got in trouble aren't charged with collusion seems kind of a strawman argument doesn't it? What people are charged with is money laundering, lying to federal agents about Russian contacts, witness tampering, identity fraud,not to mention Russian companies involved directly in election tampering. Mueller isn't done but with the information we do have, ( the Trump tower meeting, Trump going on camera saying he fired Comey over the Russian thing) it is entirely likely that charges will be leveled at POTUS and/or his family. The best you can do is claim bias, without being able to establish that that supposed bias influenced the investigation. Not only is it a bad argument, it's also an argument that history won't thank the GOP for.
-You seem to at least attempt to make lucid arguments, so I implore you to look at the strength of your argument. The FBI and Mueller hated the president of the United States to such an extent and they were so biased that they didn't leak, that they were looking at his campaign for possible Russian contacts, and released a few weeks before the elections that they were looking at additional emails from Hillary. Either they are the most inept conspirators in the history of the world, or your argument sucks, what do you think is more likely?

Nowhere have I claimed the FBI is biased. What I have done is punctured the myth that the revealed text and email communications mean nothing. They mean a lot when it comes to compete faith in our law enforcement institutions. As for Mueller, sure his investigation is wide open and has few boundaries, but the whole purpose behind it has always been to undermine or destroy the Trump presidency, and we've been told many times that Russian collusion is the path by which that will be accomplished, so to claim the troubles Mueller has succeeded in creating so far as evidence of something or other is a bit weak.

You are right it does mean something. What you have done is made clear that the populace will question the law enforcement agencies,as long as the GOP,Trump and the right in general keeps on yelling bias. As I pointed out, besides it being a bad argument on merit, it's also an argument that no judge would accept. If you actually do not believe that the FBI is biased but rather argue "look it's working, so hurrah" that is even worse. Because that would mean you support destroying the credibility of the FBI for partisan reasons. Cynical to say the least. And in a way further proof of my dictator argument since this would mean that you and by extension the GOP and everybody on the right would put Trump before country.

They will question as long as things like these communications come out. Obviously, you would prefer everyone simply ignore them, since they call into question the actions of the agents in question. And you can relax, Trump is not and won't be a dictator.

 

[forkup]

-If you state he would want to find evidence, not fabricate or ignore evidence he still would work within his job description. You made it a point to specify he would conduct his job impartially. As I stated in my analogies, something that has been confirmed by countless judges in countless cases. A claim of bias doesn't negate the findings of any investigation. If it did almost all criminals could get of. You would have to come up with concrete examples of them acting on that bias by tampering with the investigative process. Have you seen any such evidence??
- Lets talk specifics a bit, this analogy thing has served it's purpose in my opinion. The right's claim is because one can find people expressing dislike for the president within the FBI and in one case can find someone within the Mueller probe who expressed a similar dislike, the Mueller probe is invalid not to mention a witchhunt. This besides the fact that Mueller was appointed not by the FBI but by the DOJ, Mueller got the person who expressed that bias removed from his team the moment he learned about it, nobody can point to anything specific Mueller did that would suggest any bias, Mueller was a registered Republican and that Mueller already got multiple guilty pleas and several indictments already. Btw, it is telling that the emphasis of the argument your making isn't that Trump didn't do anything wrong but that the investigation can be questioned.
- On the last bit I noticed you didn't answer my question.
I see you making excuses for why Trump is justified, a flimsy argument at best.

Yes, we are aware that Mueller has gotten some people in trouble. It would be instructive for you too also look at what they are in trouble for. Hint, it's not for colluding with Russia.

I specifically did not address any block Trump is "going after" because he's not going to get rid of any of them. Nothing he can do will eliminate a press that is hostile towards Republicans. He can only expose and amplify their bias. Likewise, he can't get rid of Congress or the courts. Face it, Trump is not a dictator now and never will be. THAT'S why I ignored your statement.

https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/967231/download
Since nowhere in Muellers mandate did the word collusion ever appear, saying the people he got in trouble aren't charged with collusion seems kind of a strawman argument doesn't it? What people are charged with is money laundering, lying to federal agents about Russian contacts, witness tampering, identity fraud,not to mention Russian companies involved directly in election tampering. Mueller isn't done but with the information we do have, ( the Trump tower meeting, Trump going on camera saying he fired Comey over the Russian thing) it is entirely likely that charges will be leveled at POTUS and/or his family. The best you can do is claim bias, without being able to establish that that supposed bias influenced the investigation. Not only is it a bad argument, it's also an argument that history won't thank the GOP for.
-You seem to at least attempt to make lucid arguments, so I implore you to look at the strength of your argument. The FBI and Mueller hated the president of the United States to such an extent and they were so biased that they didn't leak, that they were looking at his campaign for possible Russian contacts, and released a few weeks before the elections that they were looking at additional emails from Hillary. Either they are the most inept conspirators in the history of the world, or your argument sucks, what do you think is more likely?

Nowhere have I claimed the FBI is biased. What I have done is punctured the myth that the revealed text and email communications mean nothing. They mean a lot when it comes to compete faith in our law enforcement institutions. As for Mueller, sure his investigation is wide open and has few boundaries, but the whole purpose behind it has always been to undermine or destroy the Trump presidency, and we've been told many times that Russian collusion is the path by which that will be accomplished, so to claim the troubles Mueller has succeeded in creating so far as evidence of something or other is a bit weak.

You are right it does mean something. What you have done is made clear that the populace will question the law enforcement agencies,as long as the GOP,Trump and the right in general keeps on yelling bias. As I pointed out, besides it being a bad argument on merit, it's also an argument that no judge would accept. If you actually do not believe that the FBI is biased but rather argue "look it's working, so hurrah" that is even worse. Because that would mean you support destroying the credibility of the FBI for partisan reasons. Cynical to say the least. And in a way further proof of my dictator argument since this would mean that you and by extension the GOP and everybody on the right would put Trump before country.

They will question as long as things like these communications come out. Obviously, you would prefer everyone simply ignore them, since they call into question the actions of the agents in question. And you can relax, Trump is not and won't be a dictator.

This goes right back to my original reply. What is so bad about these communications? All it does is show that federal agents have political preferences.Everybody does. I still remember Guilliani teasing a November surprise, citing the FBI New York field office being anti Hilary. I'm guessing you didn't question if that was appropriate. For the last time. If the bases for saying an investigation is biased is a simple expressing of preference. You can't point to anything that suggests they acted on that preference,then both legally and practically you are making a bad argument. It serves no purpose but attacking the integrity of the FBI, so one can get away with breaking the law and possible treason. All being done by exactly those people who are charged with protecting the interest of the people.

 

[hadit]

Yes, we are aware that Mueller has gotten some people in trouble. It would be instructive for you too also look at what they are in trouble for. Hint, it's not for colluding with Russia.

I specifically did not address any block Trump is "going after" because he's not going to get rid of any of them. Nothing he can do will eliminate a press that is hostile towards Republicans. He can only expose and amplify their bias. Likewise, he can't get rid of Congress or the courts. Face it, Trump is not a dictator now and never will be. THAT'S why I ignored your statement.

https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/967231/download
Since nowhere in Muellers mandate did the word collusion ever appear, saying the people he got in trouble aren't charged with collusion seems kind of a strawman argument doesn't it? What people are charged with is money laundering, lying to federal agents about Russian contacts, witness tampering, identity fraud,not to mention Russian companies involved directly in election tampering. Mueller isn't done but with the information we do have, ( the Trump tower meeting, Trump going on camera saying he fired Comey over the Russian thing) it is entirely likely that charges will be leveled at POTUS and/or his family. The best you can do is claim bias, without being able to establish that that supposed bias influenced the investigation. Not only is it a bad argument, it's also an argument that history won't thank the GOP for.
-You seem to at least attempt to make lucid arguments, so I implore you to look at the strength of your argument. The FBI and Mueller hated the president of the United States to such an extent and they were so biased that they didn't leak, that they were looking at his campaign for possible Russian contacts, and released a few weeks before the elections that they were looking at additional emails from Hillary. Either they are the most inept conspirators in the history of the world, or your argument sucks, what do you think is more likely?

Nowhere have I claimed the FBI is biased. What I have done is punctured the myth that the revealed text and email communications mean nothing. They mean a lot when it comes to compete faith in our law enforcement institutions. As for Mueller, sure his investigation is wide open and has few boundaries, but the whole purpose behind it has always been to undermine or destroy the Trump presidency, and we've been told many times that Russian collusion is the path by which that will be accomplished, so to claim the troubles Mueller has succeeded in creating so far as evidence of something or other is a bit weak.

You are right it does mean something. What you have done is made clear that the populace will question the law enforcement agencies,as long as the GOP,Trump and the right in general keeps on yelling bias. As I pointed out, besides it being a bad argument on merit, it's also an argument that no judge would accept. If you actually do not believe that the FBI is biased but rather argue "look it's working, so hurrah" that is even worse. Because that would mean you support destroying the credibility of the FBI for partisan reasons. Cynical to say the least. And in a way further proof of my dictator argument since this would mean that you and by extension the GOP and everybody on the right would put Trump before country.

They will question as long as things like these communications come out. Obviously, you would prefer everyone simply ignore them, since they call into question the actions of the agents in question. And you can relax, Trump is not and won't be a dictator.

This goes right back to my original reply. What is so bad about these communications? All it does is show that federal agents have political preferences.Everybody does. I still remember Guilliani teasing a November surprise, citing the FBI New York field office being anti Hilary. I'm guessing you didn't question if that was appropriate. For the last time. If the bases for saying an investigation is biased is a simple expressing of preference. You can't point to anything that suggests they acted on that preference,then both legally and practically you are making a bad argument. It serves no purpose but attacking the integrity of the FBI, so one can get away with breaking the law and possible treason. All being done by exactly those people who are charged with protecting the interest of the people.

And, of course, you seem to lack even curiosity about the credibility of the investigation. When the team is stacked with supporters of the president's opponent, and they're acting on information provided by partisans who openly express their hostility to the president, it is valid to question the integrity of the investigation, something you seem to wish to avoid. Note that nowhere have I said the investigation is invalid.

 

[forkup]

https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/967231/download
Since nowhere in Muellers mandate did the word collusion ever appear, saying the people he got in trouble aren't charged with collusion seems kind of a strawman argument doesn't it? What people are charged with is money laundering, lying to federal agents about Russian contacts, witness tampering, identity fraud,not to mention Russian companies involved directly in election tampering. Mueller isn't done but with the information we do have, ( the Trump tower meeting, Trump going on camera saying he fired Comey over the Russian thing) it is entirely likely that charges will be leveled at POTUS and/or his family. The best you can do is claim bias, without being able to establish that that supposed bias influenced the investigation. Not only is it a bad argument, it's also an argument that history won't thank the GOP for.
-You seem to at least attempt to make lucid arguments, so I implore you to look at the strength of your argument. The FBI and Mueller hated the president of the United States to such an extent and they were so biased that they didn't leak, that they were looking at his campaign for possible Russian contacts, and released a few weeks before the elections that they were looking at additional emails from Hillary. Either they are the most inept conspirators in the history of the world, or your argument sucks, what do you think is more likely?

Nowhere have I claimed the FBI is biased. What I have done is punctured the myth that the revealed text and email communications mean nothing. They mean a lot when it comes to compete faith in our law enforcement institutions. As for Mueller, sure his investigation is wide open and has few boundaries, but the whole purpose behind it has always been to undermine or destroy the Trump presidency, and we've been told many times that Russian collusion is the path by which that will be accomplished, so to claim the troubles Mueller has succeeded in creating so far as evidence of something or other is a bit weak.

You are right it does mean something. What you have done is made clear that the populace will question the law enforcement agencies,as long as the GOP,Trump and the right in general keeps on yelling bias. As I pointed out, besides it being a bad argument on merit, it's also an argument that no judge would accept. If you actually do not believe that the FBI is biased but rather argue "look it's working, so hurrah" that is even worse. Because that would mean you support destroying the credibility of the FBI for partisan reasons. Cynical to say the least. And in a way further proof of my dictator argument since this would mean that you and by extension the GOP and everybody on the right would put Trump before country.

They will question as long as things like these communications come out. Obviously, you would prefer everyone simply ignore them, since they call into question the actions of the agents in question. And you can relax, Trump is not and won't be a dictator.

This goes right back to my original reply. What is so bad about these communications? All it does is show that federal agents have political preferences.Everybody does. I still remember Guilliani teasing a November surprise, citing the FBI New York field office being anti Hilary. I'm guessing you didn't question if that was appropriate. For the last time. If the bases for saying an investigation is biased is a simple expressing of preference. You can't point to anything that suggests they acted on that preference,then both legally and practically you are making a bad argument. It serves no purpose but attacking the integrity of the FBI, so one can get away with breaking the law and possible treason. All being done by exactly those people who are charged with protecting the interest of the people.

And, of course, you seem to lack even curiosity about the credibility of the investigation. When the team is stacked with supporters of the president's opponent, and they're acting on information provided by partisans who openly express their hostility to the president, it is valid to question the integrity of the investigation, something you seem to wish to avoid. Note that nowhere have I said the investigation is invalid.

I haven't seen anything to make me question the credibility of the Mueller probe. If you would be able to point to a instance were the probe fabricated evidence, fine. If you could show that Mueller didn't act when Strozk's messages came to his attention you might have a point. If you could show that Mueller went out of his mandate, you might get me to question it. So far the only thing that you have been able to establish is that some people on the probe aren't Trump supporters. Something which is true for over 50 percent of the population. BTW as I pointed out, this to me isn't partisan. I defended Comey going to congress because the Weiner laptop to,my response wasn't he wants Trump to be elected because he wants a Republican to win. Something that if I wanted would have the same credibility as your argument. Not only do I give the FBI the benefit of the doubt. I take a dim view of people prepared to go after people without being able to even establish a clear reason to do so. In high school they call them bullies, in politics I call them dishonest.

 

[hadit]

Nowhere have I claimed the FBI is biased. What I have done is punctured the myth that the revealed text and email communications mean nothing. They mean a lot when it comes to compete faith in our law enforcement institutions. As for Mueller, sure his investigation is wide open and has few boundaries, but the whole purpose behind it has always been to undermine or destroy the Trump presidency, and we've been told many times that Russian collusion is the path by which that will be accomplished, so to claim the troubles Mueller has succeeded in creating so far as evidence of something or other is a bit weak.

You are right it does mean something. What you have done is made clear that the populace will question the law enforcement agencies,as long as the GOP,Trump and the right in general keeps on yelling bias. As I pointed out, besides it being a bad argument on merit, it's also an argument that no judge would accept. If you actually do not believe that the FBI is biased but rather argue "look it's working, so hurrah" that is even worse. Because that would mean you support destroying the credibility of the FBI for partisan reasons. Cynical to say the least. And in a way further proof of my dictator argument since this would mean that you and by extension the GOP and everybody on the right would put Trump before country.

They will question as long as things like these communications come out. Obviously, you would prefer everyone simply ignore them, since they call into question the actions of the agents in question. And you can relax, Trump is not and won't be a dictator.

This goes right back to my original reply. What is so bad about these communications? All it does is show that federal agents have political preferences.Everybody does. I still remember Guilliani teasing a November surprise, citing the FBI New York field office being anti Hilary. I'm guessing you didn't question if that was appropriate. For the last time. If the bases for saying an investigation is biased is a simple expressing of preference. You can't point to anything that suggests they acted on that preference,then both legally and practically you are making a bad argument. It serves no purpose but attacking the integrity of the FBI, so one can get away with breaking the law and possible treason. All being done by exactly those people who are charged with protecting the interest of the people.

And, of course, you seem to lack even curiosity about the credibility of the investigation. When the team is stacked with supporters of the president's opponent, and they're acting on information provided by partisans who openly express their hostility to the president, it is valid to question the integrity of the investigation, something you seem to wish to avoid. Note that nowhere have I said the investigation is invalid.

I haven't seen anything to make me question the credibility of the Mueller probe. If you would be able to point to a instance were the probe fabricated evidence, fine. If you could show that Mueller didn't act when Strozk's messages came to his attention you might have a point. If you could show that Mueller went out of his mandate, you might get me to question it. So far the only thing that you have been able to establish is that some people on the probe aren't Trump supporters. Something which is true for over 50 percent of the population. BTW as I pointed out, this to me isn't partisan. I defended Comey going to congress because the Weiner laptop to,my response wasn't he wants Trump to be elected because he wants a Republican to win. Something that if I wanted would have the same credibility as your argument. Not only do I give the FBI the benefit of the doubt. I take a dim view of people prepared to go after people without being able to even establish a clear reason to do so. In high school they call them bullies, in politics I call them dishonest.

And therein lies the weakness of your position. "Some people aren't Trump supporters" is a far cry from the virulent anti-Trump hated expressed by the agents. It does warrant a second look at anything they contributed to the investigation, certainly more than mere dismissal.

 

[forkup]

You are right it does mean something. What you have done is made clear that the populace will question the law enforcement agencies,as long as the GOP,Trump and the right in general keeps on yelling bias. As I pointed out, besides it being a bad argument on merit, it's also an argument that no judge would accept. If you actually do not believe that the FBI is biased but rather argue "look it's working, so hurrah" that is even worse. Because that would mean you support destroying the credibility of the FBI for partisan reasons. Cynical to say the least. And in a way further proof of my dictator argument since this would mean that you and by extension the GOP and everybody on the right would put Trump before country.

They will question as long as things like these communications come out. Obviously, you would prefer everyone simply ignore them, since they call into question the actions of the agents in question. And you can relax, Trump is not and won't be a dictator.

This goes right back to my original reply. What is so bad about these communications? All it does is show that federal agents have political preferences.Everybody does. I still remember Guilliani teasing a November surprise, citing the FBI New York field office being anti Hilary. I'm guessing you didn't question if that was appropriate. For the last time. If the bases for saying an investigation is biased is a simple expressing of preference. You can't point to anything that suggests they acted on that preference,then both legally and practically you are making a bad argument. It serves no purpose but attacking the integrity of the FBI, so one can get away with breaking the law and possible treason. All being done by exactly those people who are charged with protecting the interest of the people.

And, of course, you seem to lack even curiosity about the credibility of the investigation. When the team is stacked with supporters of the president's opponent, and they're acting on information provided by partisans who openly express their hostility to the president, it is valid to question the integrity of the investigation, something you seem to wish to avoid. Note that nowhere have I said the investigation is invalid.

I haven't seen anything to make me question the credibility of the Mueller probe. If you would be able to point to a instance were the probe fabricated evidence, fine. If you could show that Mueller didn't act when Strozk's messages came to his attention you might have a point. If you could show that Mueller went out of his mandate, you might get me to question it. So far the only thing that you have been able to establish is that some people on the probe aren't Trump supporters. Something which is true for over 50 percent of the population. BTW as I pointed out, this to me isn't partisan. I defended Comey going to congress because the Weiner laptop to,my response wasn't he wants Trump to be elected because he wants a Republican to win. Something that if I wanted would have the same credibility as your argument. Not only do I give the FBI the benefit of the doubt. I take a dim view of people prepared to go after people without being able to even establish a clear reason to do so. In high school they call them bullies, in politics I call them dishonest.

And therein lies the weakness of your position. "Some people aren't Trump supporters" is a far cry from the virulent anti-Trump hated expressed by the agents. It does warrant a second look at anything they contributed to the investigation, certainly more than mere dismissal.

Virulent anti-Trump hate??Do you think, you don't have to come up with anything specific when you feel the bias is big enough? Again cops virulent hate pedophiles I'd imagine, yet that doesn't dismiss them from the responsibility of pursuing a case in the right way. In other words thinking the hate to Trump is especially big doesn't in any way absolve you from the responsibility of being able to point to actual wrongdoing.

 

[bripat9643]

First, the desire to find evidence is not the problem, because I specified that the coroner is looking for exculpatory evidence, which means he wants to clear the cop, not find out what really happened.

Second, of course bad apples make the whole batch suspect. When you find one, you have to check the others to see if they are effected too. Same in this case. If two influential agents are determined to prevent Trump from becoming president, it calls into question all of the others.

Third, Trump naturally protests the way media outlets treat him. They make no pretense of impartiality when they spew their hate. Obama did the same thing, if you will recall, attacking FOX News because they weren't sufficiently fawning towards him. Relax, he's never going to be a dictator.

-If you state he would want to find evidence, not fabricate or ignore evidence he still would work within his job description. You made it a point to specify he would conduct his job impartially. As I stated in my analogies, something that has been confirmed by countless judges in countless cases. A claim of bias doesn't negate the findings of any investigation. If it did almost all criminals could get of. You would have to come up with concrete examples of them acting on that bias by tampering with the investigative process. Have you seen any such evidence??
- Lets talk specifics a bit, this analogy thing has served it's purpose in my opinion. The right's claim is because one can find people expressing dislike for the president within the FBI and in one case can find someone within the Mueller probe who expressed a similar dislike, the Mueller probe is invalid not to mention a witchhunt. This besides the fact that Mueller was appointed not by the FBI but by the DOJ, Mueller got the person who expressed that bias removed from his team the moment he learned about it, nobody can point to anything specific Mueller did that would suggest any bias, Mueller was a registered Republican and that Mueller already got multiple guilty pleas and several indictments already. Btw, it is telling that the emphasis of the argument your making isn't that Trump didn't do anything wrong but that the investigation can be questioned.
- On the last bit I noticed you didn't answer my question.

What roadblock do you see that Trump isn't going after?

I see you making excuses for why Trump is justified, a flimsy argument at best.

Yes, we are aware that Mueller has gotten some people in trouble. It would be instructive for you too also look at what they are in trouble for. Hint, it's not for colluding with Russia.

I specifically did not address any block Trump is "going after" because he's not going to get rid of any of them. Nothing he can do will eliminate a press that is hostile towards Republicans. He can only expose and amplify their bias. Likewise, he can't get rid of Congress or the courts. Face it, Trump is not a dictator now and never will be. THAT'S why I ignored your statement.

https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/967231/download
Since nowhere in Muellers mandate did the word collusion ever appear, saying the people he got in trouble aren't charged with collusion seems kind of a strawman argument doesn't it? What people are charged with is money laundering, lying to federal agents about Russian contacts, witness tampering, identity fraud,not to mention Russian companies involved directly in election tampering. Mueller isn't done but with the information we do have, ( the Trump tower meeting, Trump going on camera saying he fired Comey over the Russian thing) it is entirely likely that charges will be leveled at POTUS and/or his family. The best you can do is claim bias, without being able to establish that that supposed bias influenced the investigation. Not only is it a bad argument, it's also an argument that history won't thank the GOP for.
-You seem to at least attempt to make lucid arguments, so I implore you to look at the strength of your argument. The FBI and Mueller hated the president of the United States to such an extent and they were so biased that they didn't leak, that they were looking at his campaign for possible Russian contacts, and released a few weeks before the elections that they were looking at additional emails from Hillary. Either they are the most inept conspirators in the history of the world, or your argument sucks, what do you think is more likely?

Nowhere have I claimed the FBI is biased. What I have done is punctured the myth that the revealed text and email communications mean nothing. They mean a lot when it comes to compete faith in our law enforcement institutions. As for Mueller, sure his investigation is wide open and has few boundaries, but the whole purpose behind it has always been to undermine or destroy the Trump presidency, and we've been told many times that Russian collusion is the path by which that will be accomplished, so to claim the troubles Mueller has succeeded in creating so far as evidence of something or other is a bit weak.

You are right it does mean something. What you have done is made clear that the populace will question the law enforcement agencies,as long as the GOP,Trump and the right in general keeps on yelling bias. As I pointed out, besides it being a bad argument on merit, it's also an argument that no judge would accept. If you actually do not believe that the FBI is biased but rather argue "look it's working, so hurrah" that is even worse. Because that would mean you support destroying the credibility of the FBI for partisan reasons. Cynical to say the least. And in a way further proof of my dictator argument since this would mean that you and by extension the GOP and everybody on the right would put Trump before country.

The FBI has already destroyed its credibility, and its obviously partisan actions are the reason. We realize you will defend these corrupt douchebags to the bitter end.

 

[Darkwind]

OH wait a moment. Federal agents have opinions. My God the horror. Don't they realize only someone posting on forums have a right to them.
Having an opinion isn't the same as letting that opinion interfere with your work. Or do you think that every Trump supporter who works in McDonald's spits on the fries of every Mexican you comes and eats there?

I wonder if you'd say the same things if the comments were in the other direction.

I won't ask, of course, why bother. But I do wonder.
.

Really? I don't wonder at all. I know what the reaction would be.

 

[forkup]

OH wait a moment. Federal agents have opinions. My God the horror. Don't they realize only someone posting on forums have a right to them.
Having an opinion isn't the same as letting that opinion interfere with your work. Or do you think that every Trump supporter who works in McDonald's spits on the fries of every Mexican you comes and eats there?

I wonder if you'd say the same things if the comments were in the other direction.

I won't ask, of course, why bother. But I do wonder.
.

Really? I don't wonder at all. I know what the reaction would be.

So do I. In fact the next page I showed what my reaction was when the FBI tanked the Clinton campaign. Spoiler, I defended the FBI that time to.

 

[IM2]

OH wait a moment. Federal agents have opinions. My God the horror. Don't they realize only someone posting on forums have a right to them.
Having an opinion isn't the same as letting that opinion interfere with your work. Or do you think that every Trump supporter who works in McDonald's spits on the fries of every Mexican you comes and eats there?

I wonder if you'd say the same things if the comments were in the other direction.

I won't ask, of course, why bother. But I do wonder.
.

Except they were.

'The FBI is Trumpland': anti-Clinton atmosphere spurred leaking, sources say

Highly unfavorable view of Hillary Clinton intensified after James Comey’s decision not to recommend an indictment over her use of a private email server

Deep antipathy to Hillary Clinton exists within the FBI, multiple bureau sources have told the Guardian, spurring a rapid series of leaks damaging to her campaign just days before the election.

Current and former FBI officials, none of whom were willing or cleared to speak on the record, have described a chaotic internal climate that resulted from outrage over director James Comey’s July decision not to recommend an indictment over Clinton’s maintenance of a private email server on which classified information transited.

“The FBI is Trumpland,” said one current agent.

This atmosphere raises major questions about how Comey and the bureau he is slated to run for the next seven years can work with Clinton should she win the White House.

The currently serving FBI agent said Clinton is “the antichrist personified to a large swath of FBI personnel,” and that “the reason why they’re leaking is they’re pro-Trump.”

The agent called the bureau “Trumplandia”, with some colleagues openly discussing voting for a GOP nominee who has garnered unprecedented condemnation from the party’s national security wing and who has pledged to jail Clinton if elected.

'The FBI is Trumpland': anti-Clinton atmosphere spurred leaking, sources say

The anti-Clinton insurgency at the FBI, explained

It’s come to this: The FBI, America’s premier law enforcement agency, just had to decide whether to investigate one of its own Twitter accounts to see if it had an anti-Hillary Clinton bias.

The account in question, @FBIRecordsVault, burst into the news earlier this week after abruptly posting records related to Bill Clinton’s last-minute — and deeply controversial — pardon of financier Marc Rich. An FBI official said in an interview that the bureau’s Office of Professional Responsibility referred the matter to its Inspection Division for a possible investigation into whether anyone in the FBI had intentionally released the documents to hurt Hillary Clinton.

The official said the bureau’s internal watchdog opted against opening a formal investigation. Still, the fact that such a decision even had to be made highlights the crisis engulfing the bureau in the days since FBI Director James Comey stunned observers inside and outside the bureau by notifying Congress just 11 days before the election that he was renewing the dormant probe into Clinton’s private email server.

Comey has since come under sustained criticism from law enforcement veterans and lawmakers from both parties who believe he broke with longstanding Justice Department policies by directly intruding into the presidential race — and potentially impacting its outcome.

“There’s a longstanding policy of not doing anything that could influence an election,” George J. Terwilliger III, a deputy attorney general under President George Bush, told the New York Times last week. “Those guidelines exist for a reason. Sometimes, that makes for hard decisions. But bypassing them has consequences.”

Comey dropped another bombshell Sunday when he released a new letter to lawmakers saying the FBI had seen nothing in its review of the newly discovered trove of emails that would change his July recommendation that Clinton not face criminal charges.

Voters have spent days being barraged by round-the-clock coverage of his first letter, however, and Sunday’s quasi-retraction could be way too little, too late. That’s particularly true for the millions of Americans who have cast early ballots since Comey made his announcement.

The FBI chief also hasn’t been the only member of the FBI bureau stepping into the election. Earlier this week, unnamed sources within the bureau told the Wall Street Journal that some FBI agents believed they had enough evidence to begin an aggressive investigation into a potential pay-to-play scheme at the Clinton Foundation, but were overruled by more senior officials.

Another anti-Clinton leak came Thursday, when sources thought to be disgruntled FBI officials told Fox News that an indictment was coming in the Clinton Foundation case. The story gave Trump a new talking point, dominated Fox’s primetime news programming, and rocketed across the conservative media before being debunked by an array of other media outlets. By that point, though, the damage had already been done.

Taken together, it’s easy to come away with the conclusion that the FBI is out to get Hillary Clinton. The truth, though, is far more complicated. The FBI isn’t a monolith, and it isn’t the bureau as a whole that is targeting Clinton. Experts who study the FBI believe the leaks are coming from a small clique of agents who profoundly distrust Clinton and believe she deserves to be punished for what they see as a long record of ethically dubious behavior.

The anti-Clinton insurgency at the FBI, explained

New signs of anti-Clinton bias within FBI

GOP Rep. Devin Nunes admits getting leaked info about Clinton emails during campaign as a lawyer recalls FBI employees saying, "You guys are finally going to get that b----."

New signs of anti-Clinton bias within FBI