Politics The FBI’s Political Meddling

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

I've posted this numerous times. I have no desire to see Mueller gone. When Clinton and his allies went after Ken Starr, it was bad for the republic. It's no better when those on the right go after Mueller.

As clear and plain as I can make it: Mueller should be allowed to finish his job, and nobody should block or slow him down. The Truth will come out and there'll be plenty of time to politically spin his findings.

We don't want people friendly to the ones being investigated to do the investigations. We want the most partisan of the opposing view to do the investigation. When it's done and he (or she) finds a nothingburger, that finding is unimpeachable. If he finds against the ones being investigated, and his methods are questionable, that will come out, too. If the finding is a smear job for partisan reasons, that will come out, too.

As far as Mueller goes, he seems a man of integrity to me. Let him do his job.

(We don't have a thread about him)
 
Sorry Denny. When you have nothing after 6 or 7 months, integrity demands you say so.

So, therefore, maybe he has something.

barfo
 
So, therefore, maybe he has something.

barfo

He might as well come with it then. Only public opinion brought to bare through Congress can do anything about it.

No, he is still fishing. And cashing checks.
 
I agree with you Denny, but that said, of course I think Ken Starr was out of control.

Similarly, Comey threw the election to Trump and should be fired.

Oops, he was!
 
Marazul - Investigations, especially one so important and detailed, sadly, take more than 6 months. Ken Starr was at it for years.

Mueller has no obligation to give an interim report. Indeed, he has every reason not to. He may have something, he may not. His silence is no indication of either.
 
Mueller is knee-deep in the FBI's cover-up of criminality and abuse of office under his watch, same with Rosenstein.

No possible way to receive an acceptable and honest result as long as either, or any of their appointees, remain on the investigation.

Foxes guarding the henhouse.
 
We don't want people friendly to the ones being investigated to do the investigations. We want the most partisan of the opposing view to do the investigation.
That's pretty asinine even for you. Given that you assume it is possible to identify who's partisan, then let's assume it's a continuum. We want the most disinterested (no, that doesn't mean uninterested) non-partisan investigator possible. If the investigator is partisan then they will claim to have found SOMETHING, and conversely, they will be branded "Fake News" by the partisan hacks on the other side and no wrongdoing will ever be recognized.
 
Ken Starr was at it for years.

Ken Starr was at it for years and found nothing actionable, but that Big Bill was sleazy bugger. Not a good justification for abusing another President. The idea that we elect a President and then the opposition gets the consolation prize of having him "investigated"
for years is not a good system. A better way is to investigate again in four years.
 
I agree with you Denny, but that said, of course I think Ken Starr was out of control.

Similarly, Comey threw the election to Trump and should be fired.

Oops, he was!
Starr chose the wrong crime to go after Clinton for. He had a few options.
 
That's pretty asinine even for you. Given that you assume it is possible to identify who's partisan, then let's assume it's a continuum. We want the most disinterested (no, that doesn't mean uninterested) non-partisan investigator possible. If the investigator is partisan then they will claim to have found SOMETHING, and conversely, they will be branded "Fake News" by the partisan hacks on the other side and no wrongdoing will ever be recognized.
If you complain about the special counsel that will investigate the Clintons and their foundation, that’s a good sign we got the right partisan.

Starr was a well known conservative, who served as solicitor general for GHW Bush. A constitutional scholar.
 
Starr chose the wrong crime to go after Clinton for. He had a few options.

Starr went after Clinton for everything that he could think of. He didn't skip anything. All he found in the end was a sex scandal.

Maybe Mueller's investigation will end the same way. We'll learn that Trump gave Putin a blowjob.

barfo
 
Ken Starr was at it for years and found nothing actionable, but that Big Bill was sleazy bugger. Not a good justification for abusing another President. The idea that we elect a President and then the opposition gets the consolation prize of having him "investigated"
for years is not a good system. A better way is to investigate again in four years.

I agree with you 100%.

You will note that there were few investigations of either W. or Obama because they didn't give the oppo much to investigate.

Reagan had Iran-Contra. That was Real. Bill had Monica and Perjury. Real. Personally, I think there is too mush Russia smoke for something not to be there, but it is worth investigating. It may or may not be real.
 
Starr went after Clinton for everything that he could think of. He didn't skip anything. All he found in the end was a sex scandal.

Maybe Mueller's investigation will end the same way. We'll learn that Trump gave Putin a blowjob.

barfo

He could have gone after him for several of the crimes Nixon was accused of, including misuse of public office (he sent his cabinet members out to lie for him), lying to the FBI, perjury, and obstruction of justice.

At least.
 
I agree with you 100%.

You will note that there were few investigations of either W. or Obama because they didn't give the oppo much to investigate.

Reagan had Iran-Contra. That was Real. Bill had Monica and Perjury. Real. Personally, I think there is too mush Russia smoke for something not to be there, but it is worth investigating. It may or may not be real.

George W Bush

9/11 Commission

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efforts_to_impeach_George_W._Bush

https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Bush_administration_investigations
There have been a number of investigations regarding the George W. Bush administration, some of which are still on-going.
Obama

Trump wiretapping
IRS targeting of conservative groups
Benghazi
Operation Fast and Furious
Solyndra
 
Sorry Denny. When you have nothing after 6 or 7 months, integrity demands you say so.

First indictments reportedly handed down.

Happy now?

barfo
 
Ken Starr was at it for years and found nothing actionable, but that Big Bill was sleazy bugger. Not a good justification for abusing another President. The idea that we elect a President and then the opposition gets the consolation prize of having him "investigated"
for years is not a good system. A better way is to investigate again in four years.
naw....better to just draft talent at the executive level....we've failed repeatedly to do this......and we're all to blame
 
First indictments reportedly handed down.

Happy now?

barfo

Panic filing, in the face of demands for his resignation due to personal involvement in the Uranium One coverup and possible FBI attempts to influence the election.
 
The told Manafort they were going to indict him.

The only surprise would be if it's not him.
 
https://www.judicialwatch.org/bulletins/draft-indictment-hillary-rodham-clinton/

Long before Benghazi, long before emails and clever Clinton Foundation shakedowns, there was Whitewater. The Clintons—abetted by the slack intellectual standards of American media—have succeeded in putting over the argument that Whitewater “was about nothing.” The Judicial Watch case proves otherwise.

For more than two years, Judicial Watch has been fighting to make public draft federal criminal indictments of Mrs. Clinton in the Whitewater affair. The allegations are well known to aficionados of financial crime: with Gov. Bill Clinton running Arkansas, Mrs. Clinton leveraged her work at the Rose Law Firm into a series of transactions on behalf of a corrupt financial institution, Madison Guaranty Savings & Loan, run by a longtime Clinton crony, James McDougal. Among the transactions was a document drafted by Mrs. Clinton to conceal a series of fraudulent loans that were used to deceive federal bank examiners. Winning the White House, Mrs. Clinton and her allies engaged in a long-running cover-up.

Between 1996 and 1998, the Office of Independent Counsel drew up a series of draft indictments of Mrs. Clinton. In the end, overwhelmed by the Lewinsky perjury case and stymied by Clinton stonewalls, prosecutors decided not to bring charges against Mrs. Clinton. But the evidence against the First Lady was significant. And the case sheds light as well on the mystery of why Mrs. Clinton is such a polarizing figure: Whitewater presents significant evidence that she was a crook, and got away with it.
 
https://www.judicialwatch.org/bulletins/draft-indictment-hillary-rodham-clinton/

Long before Benghazi, long before emails and clever Clinton Foundation shakedowns, there was Whitewater. The Clintons—abetted by the slack intellectual standards of American media—have succeeded in putting over the argument that Whitewater “was about nothing.” The Judicial Watch case proves otherwise.

For more than two years, Judicial Watch has been fighting to make public draft federal criminal indictments of Mrs. Clinton in the Whitewater affair. The allegations are well known to aficionados of financial crime: with Gov. Bill Clinton running Arkansas, Mrs. Clinton leveraged her work at the Rose Law Firm into a series of transactions on behalf of a corrupt financial institution, Madison Guaranty Savings & Loan, run by a longtime Clinton crony, James McDougal. Among the transactions was a document drafted by Mrs. Clinton to conceal a series of fraudulent loans that were used to deceive federal bank examiners. Winning the White House, Mrs. Clinton and her allies engaged in a long-running cover-up.

Between 1996 and 1998, the Office of Independent Counsel drew up a series of draft indictments of Mrs. Clinton. In the end, overwhelmed by the Lewinsky perjury case and stymied by Clinton stonewalls, prosecutors decided not to bring charges against Mrs. Clinton. But the evidence against the First Lady was significant. And the case sheds light as well on the mystery of why Mrs. Clinton is such a polarizing figure: Whitewater presents significant evidence that she was a crook, and got away with it.

Too funny. "Oh, Bill lied about getting a blowjob! We must drop everything else! Besides, she won't confess, so we have no case!"

But I'm glad you agree that long-ago crimes should be prosecuted. That understanding should come in handy, perhaps as soon as Monday.

barfo
 
Too funny. "Oh, Bill lied about getting a blowjob! We must drop everything else! Besides, she won't confess, so we have no case!"

But I'm glad you agree that long-ago crimes should be prosecuted. That understanding should come in handy, perhaps as soon as Monday.

barfo
Reading is fun-damental.

Crimes have varying statutes of limitations.
 
Reading is fun-damental.

Crimes have varying statutes of limitations.

Yes, and? Not sure I see that you have a point here.

But I agree that crimes have varying statutes of limitations. As a factoid, that's certainly a good one.

barfo
 
Yes, and? Not sure I see that you have a point here.

But I agree that crimes have varying statutes of limitations. As a factoid, that's certainly a good one.

barfo

You don't seem to comprehend what Judicial Watch wrote.
 
You don't seem to comprehend what Judicial Watch wrote.

Ok, since you can't explain your point, or don't have one, we'll have to leave it there.

barfo
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top