Sign out
Bimmerpost
Login
BMW E39 5-Series Forum | 5Post.com
BMW Garage BMW Meets Register Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read  
Go Back   BMW E39 5-Series Forum | 5Post.com > BIMMERPOST Universal Forums > Off-Topic Discussions Board > Politics/Religion

Post Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
      06-01-2019, 10:06 AM   #23
Genieman
First Lieutenant
192
Rep
303
Posts

 
Drives: 340i xDrive
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: United States

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by gjm120 View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Genieman View Post
The initial basis for the investigation was (broadly) Russian involvement in the election, and (more narrowly) Trump campaign participation with the Russians. Of the convictions you mentioned, how many were campaign staff? And of those that were campaign staff, how many were charged or convicted of collusion with Russians and election interference?
Answer: none. All of the convictions stemmed from lying during the investigation and/or crimes uncovered not having anything to do with the election.
When I consider the efficacy of an investigation the only metric that matters is the number of people convicted of crimes directly related to the original basis for the investigation. In the campaign there were none of those.

If I accused you of murder and you said no I was at burger king at the time and then it turns out that you were really at your mistress's house, you would have lied during the investigation, doesn't make you a murderer.

If I accused you of murder and during the investigation I uncover that you cheated on your taxes, that doesn't make it a successful murder investigation.

You aren't looking at this thru the correct tint of glasses.

I'd bet that digging into any politician or high level political operative with the breadth and power of the Mueller investigation, a huge percentage would be found guilty of some crime. Not advocating let them off for doing things wrong (hiding tons of income from taxes is tax fraud regardless of how it was discovered), but, all sides of the spectrum are packed with slimy crooked people.
Totally agree. I would bet dollars to doughnuts that if you put anyone in high level politics (left and right) under a microscope you would find tons of things ranging from morally reprehensible to outright criminal. Having said that, you don't get to put everyone under a microscope all the time without a valid probable cause for investigation. We can't use dubious charges as an excuse to launch whole-life investigations even if we know that we'd likely find something.
Appreciate 0
      06-01-2019, 10:33 AM   #24
gjm120
Lieutenant Colonel
United_States
1067
Rep
1,862
Posts

 
Drives: 2013 128i
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: East Texas

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Genieman View Post
We can't use dubious charges as an excuse to launch whole-life investigations even if we know that we'd likely find something.
But we can use warrants based on bs and input from a former foreign intelligence agent of questionable integrity & reliability.

I just wish all the juveniles in DC would go back to fighting over crap that matters.
__________________
E82 / Ver Red / Blk Boston L / BMWP Springs w/ Koni Yellows / M front control arms / M rear guide rods / AT / Sport seats & steering wheel + paddles
Appreciate 2
Genieman192.00
scostu1094.00

      06-01-2019, 10:55 AM   #25
gonzo
Lieutenant General
gonzo's Avatar
United_States
6766
Rep
12,715
Posts

 
Drives: as many as possible
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: TeXXXas

iTrader: (0)

He won't because he can't without his pants dropping.

THIS:

Mueller must testify publicly to answer three critical questions.
https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciar...ical-questions

Mueller is a hack that took his ball and ran home. Laughable.
__________________
Crazy Diamond
Appreciate 0
      06-01-2019, 10:31 PM   #26
irishbimmer
Banned
1133
Rep
1,568
Posts

 
Drives: Silverstone M6 CP, Bulldozer,
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Orange County, CA

iTrader: (0)

Anyone that says Mueller is a hack without reading the report, cover to cover has a strong desire to remain uninformed, and is no patriot.
Appreciate 3
      06-01-2019, 11:13 PM   #27
gjm120
Lieutenant Colonel
United_States
1067
Rep
1,862
Posts

 
Drives: 2013 128i
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: East Texas

iTrader: (0)

^
Gee whiz. Now I can't put a flag in my yard on the 4th.

Most obnoxious post of the day.
__________________
E82 / Ver Red / Blk Boston L / BMWP Springs w/ Koni Yellows / M front control arms / M rear guide rods / AT / Sport seats & steering wheel + paddles
Appreciate 1
SakhirM49496.00

      06-02-2019, 03:22 AM   #28
TheWatchGuy
Lieutenant Colonel
TheWatchGuy's Avatar
1979
Rep
1,533
Posts

 
Drives: 335xi
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: CO

iTrader: (0)

lol i read the whole thing and came up with a completely different conclusion, but then again, i think there was a lot of shady shit going on in this election on both sides of the aisle....

Did trumps team do some shady/stupid shit? Yes
Is it enough to start the impeachment process? No. I would think that is obvious to anyone that read it and even more evident by the lack of impeachment processes starting.
Was a lot of the "facts" more educated guesses at what was done/said/agreed to? Yes
There is a fairly clear bias in the report, especially when you get to the opinion and summation of findings parts. If you dont see that, maybe you didnt actual read it.

Yes, you cant bring charges on a sitting president, but if there was enough evidence to bring charges on him, regardless of his president status, he would be out. Dont be naive.
__________________
@drunkcowatches on ig

Am I a watch guy, or do i watch guys?
Appreciate 2
1mm2358.50
glennQNYC5531.50

      06-02-2019, 06:44 AM   #29
gonzo
Lieutenant General
gonzo's Avatar
United_States
6766
Rep
12,715
Posts

 
Drives: as many as possible
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: TeXXXas

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by irishbimmer View Post
Anyone that says Mueller is a hack without reading the report, cover to cover has a strong desire to remain uninformed, and is no patriot.
Your opinion has been noted. It doesn't hold water, but noted nonetheless.

#whywelch
__________________
Crazy Diamond

Last edited by gonzo; 06-02-2019 at 06:52 AM..
Appreciate 0
      06-02-2019, 02:30 PM   #30
irishbimmer
Banned
1133
Rep
1,568
Posts

 
Drives: Silverstone M6 CP, Bulldozer,
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Orange County, CA

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by gonzo View Post
Your opinion has been noted. It doesn't hold water, but noted nonetheless.

#whywelch
Dear WhyWelch;

As stated in a prior message to the crazy diamond, it ain't over till its over which is certainly proving to be true. I promise to keep you informed.
Appreciate 1
minn195778.50

      06-03-2019, 11:26 AM   #31
Captain Blood
Pirate and thief, avast
Captain Blood's Avatar
United_States
7894
Rep
10,129
Posts

 
Drives: 135i DCT
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Tortuga

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
2012 135  [5.00]
Quote:
Originally Posted by gonzo View Post

Mueller is a hack that took his ball and ran home. Laughable.

Translation: Hack = Professionalism.

Gonzo, you have a strange grasp of the english language.
__________________
I am serious, and don't call me Shirley.
Appreciate 2
      06-03-2019, 10:25 PM   #32
N54Yankee
Major
N54Yankee's Avatar
United_States
1566
Rep
1,229
Posts

 
Drives: N54 135|Cobb|M3 control arms
Join Date: Sep 2018
Location: USA

iTrader: (0)

Breaking tonight, the Mueller report used recorded tapes of the Presidents attorney talking to another lawyer which were ALTERED to appear to be illegal. The truth was revealed that the conversation was 100% legal discussion between 2 lawyers until Mueller team got there damn dirty paws on it. So people making decisions on whoís guilty better take a breath and wait for what develops with more splice, cut, paste shenanigans at the hands of the mueller editors.

Also, theres buzz out there that the Horowitz report might be done and even possibly in the hands of the AG at this time.
__________________
__________________
"The Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms.Ē Samuel Adams
Appreciate 2
Eriphill1145.50
glennQNYC5531.50

      06-04-2019, 06:42 AM   #33
ScottyRyan2019
Licensed Professional Slacker
ScottyRyan2019's Avatar
United_States
516
Rep
402
Posts

 
Drives: BMW 340i xDrive and BMW X3 M40
Join Date: Mar 2019
Location: St Paul, MN

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by N54Yankee View Post
Breaking tonight, the Mueller report used recorded tapes of the Presidents attorney talking to another lawyer which were ALTERED to appear to be illegal. The truth was revealed that the conversation was 100% legal discussion between 2 lawyers until Mueller team got there damn dirty paws on it. So people making decisions on who’s guilty better take a breath and wait for what develops with more splice, cut, paste shenanigans at the hands of the mueller editors.

Also, theres buzz out there that the Horowitz report might be done and even possibly in the hands of the AG at this time.
OMG!! Holy Shit!! Jimmy Hoffa has been found!!!!

Let me guess. A bunch of Trump supporting pundits were sitting around jerking off into Hannity's mouth on Fox News and you heard this and jumped on here to report this earth shattering breaking news?

Let's be completely fair to the entire story here.

Here is EXACTLY what was put into the Mueller report:

----------------------------------------------

I understand your situation, but let me see if I can't state it in starker terms. . . . [I]t
wouldn't surprise me if you've gone on to make a deal with ... the government. ... [I]f
. .. there's information that implicates the President, then we've got a national security
issue, . . . so, you know, . . . we need some kind of heads up. Um, just for the sake of
protecting all our interests ifwe can .... [R]emember what we've always said about the
' President and his feelings toward Flynn and, that still remains .... 835

------------------------


835 11/22/17 Voicemail Transcript, President's Personal Counsel to Counsel for Michael Flynn

------------------

Now, I understand that most average Americans do not understand what an ellipsis means (you know, those ... you see) but trust me, lawyers and smart people do.

Average Americans also don't understand what [ ] used in the manner they were above mean, but trust me, lawyers and smart people do.

John Dowd knows full well what he told Michael Flynn on Nov 22, 2017. He also has known all along that what was reported in the Mueller report was basically a summation (if you will) of that conversation. This is nothing new and not to him.

The transcript to the court was no bombshell.

Once again, this is people making a big deal over nothing. But since most people only believe and understand what the talking heads on their favorite news channel or twitter feed tell them and cannot think for themselves, I guess it is not surprising.


Now, with all of that said. Should they have just put the entire conversation in there? Yes. Because it really does not change anything either way you read it.
Appreciate 3
minn195778.50

      06-04-2019, 08:01 AM   #34
Captain Blood
Pirate and thief, avast
Captain Blood's Avatar
United_States
7894
Rep
10,129
Posts

 
Drives: 135i DCT
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Tortuga

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
2012 135  [5.00]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Genieman View Post
Well in the US, people are innocent until proven guilty, and therefore the onus is on you to justify the need for prosecution. So why don't you please provide the specific quotes/sections that you think warrant prosecution. Please also specify the specific laws that are broken in the conduct you intend to quote.

My point in challenging you isn't to show you that he shouldn't be prosecuted. It's to highlight the point that most people on the investigative team were slightly biased against trump personally, so if there was a remote chance that there was sufficient evidence to justify a charge based on a specific rule/law that was broken, they would have pursued it. Things that he has done that are not nice or icky do not qualify for prosecution and no one is saying that he didn't do things that were immoral or unpresidential, just that he didn't do enough to have a clear and shut case against him.
Evidence that they are biased? Besides Hannity.
__________________
I am serious, and don't call me Shirley.
Appreciate 0
      06-04-2019, 08:18 AM   #35
Genieman
First Lieutenant
192
Rep
303
Posts

 
Drives: 340i xDrive
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: United States

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Schwarzschild Radius View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Genieman View Post
Well in the US, people are innocent until proven guilty, and therefore the onus is on you to justify the need for prosecution. So why don't you please provide the specific quotes/sections that you think warrant prosecution. Please also specify the specific laws that are broken in the conduct you intend to quote.

My point in challenging you isn't to show you that he shouldn't be prosecuted. It's to highlight the point that most people on the investigative team were slightly biased against trump personally, so if there was a remote chance that there was sufficient evidence to justify a charge based on a specific rule/law that was broken, they would have pursued it. Things that he has done that are not nice or icky do not qualify for prosecution and no one is saying that he didn't do things that were immoral or unpresidential, just that he didn't do enough to have a clear and shut case against him.
Evidence that they are biased? Besides Hannity.
"publicly available voter registration information shows that 13 of the 17 members of Mueller's team have previously registered as Democrats, while four had no affiliation or their affiliation could not be found.

Nine of the 17 made political donations to Democrats, their contributions totaling more than $57,000. The majority came from one person, who also contributed to Republicans. Six donated to Hillary Clinton, Trump's opponent in the 2016 race."

https://www.google.com/amp/s/beta.wa...outputType=amp
Appreciate 0
      06-04-2019, 08:28 AM   #36
Genieman
First Lieutenant
192
Rep
303
Posts

 
Drives: 340i xDrive
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: United States

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottyRyan2019 View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by N54Yankee View Post
Breaking tonight, the Mueller report used recorded tapes of the Presidents attorney talking to another lawyer which were ALTERED to appear to be illegal. The truth was revealed that the conversation was 100% legal discussion between 2 lawyers until Mueller team got there damn dirty paws on it. So people making decisions on who's guilty better take a breath and wait for what develops with more splice, cut, paste shenanigans at the hands of the mueller editors.

Also, theres buzz out there that the Horowitz report might be done and even possibly in the hands of the AG at this time.
OMG!! Holy Shit!! Jimmy Hoffa has been found!!!!
.
.
.

Now, with all of that said. Should they have just put the entire conversation in there? Yes. Because it really does not change anything either way you read it.
Most people know what an ellipsis is, no one is saying they didn't use it appropriately from a grammatical standpoint, and when it's used to exclude large amounts of mostly irrelevant text, that's a proper legal and moral usage. When it's used to exclude certain key phrases which alter the context of a conversation or to change the tone to being more or less nefarious than the original text, thats inappropriate. Taking out words like "if it's legal for you to do so," or whatever the exact quote is, changes the tone from something that is potentially morally questionable to something that is downright illegal. Having said that, as inappropriate as it was to do that, I think republicans are putting too much focus on something that is inappropriate but doesn't exactly change much relating to the investigation.
Appreciate 0
      06-04-2019, 08:57 AM   #37
Captain Blood
Pirate and thief, avast
Captain Blood's Avatar
United_States
7894
Rep
10,129
Posts

 
Drives: 135i DCT
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Tortuga

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
2012 135  [5.00]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Genieman View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Schwarzschild Radius View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Genieman View Post
Well in the US, people are innocent until proven guilty, and therefore the onus is on you to justify the need for prosecution. So why don't you please provide the specific quotes/sections that you think warrant prosecution. Please also specify the specific laws that are broken in the conduct you intend to quote.

My point in challenging you isn't to show you that he shouldn't be prosecuted. It's to highlight the point that most people on the investigative team were slightly biased against trump personally, so if there was a remote chance that there was sufficient evidence to justify a charge based on a specific rule/law that was broken, they would have pursued it. Things that he has done that are not nice or icky do not qualify for prosecution and no one is saying that he didn't do things that were immoral or unpresidential, just that he didn't do enough to have a clear and shut case against him.
Evidence that they are biased? Besides Hannity.
"publicly available voter registration information shows that 13 of the 17 members of Mueller's team have previously registered as Democrats, while four had no affiliation or their affiliation could not be found.

Nine of the 17 made political donations to Democrats, their contributions totaling more than $57,000. The majority came from one person, who also contributed to Republicans. Six donated to Hillary Clinton, Trump's opponent in the 2016 race."

https://www.google.com/amp/s/beta.wa...outputType=amp
Thats evidence? I asked for proof, not political affiliations.

C'mon, prove they were biased.
__________________
I am serious, and don't call me Shirley.
Appreciate 1
minn195778.50

      06-04-2019, 09:08 AM   #38
N54Yankee
Major
N54Yankee's Avatar
United_States
1566
Rep
1,229
Posts

 
Drives: N54 135|Cobb|M3 control arms
Join Date: Sep 2018
Location: USA

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottyRyan2019 View Post
OMG!! Holy Shit!! Jimmy Hoffa has been found!!!!

Let me guess. A bunch of Trump supporting pundits were sitting around jerking off into Hannity's mouth on Fox News and you heard this and jumped on here to report this earth shattering breaking news?

Let's be completely fair to the entire story here.

Here is EXACTLY what was put into the Mueller report:

----------------------------------------------

I understand your situation, but let me see if I can't state it in starker terms. . . . [I]t
wouldn't surprise me if you've gone on to make a deal with ... the government. ... [I]f
. .. there's information that implicates the President, then we've got a national security
issue, . . . so, you know, . . . we need some kind of heads up. Um, just for the sake of
protecting all our interests ifwe can .... [R]emember what we've always said about the
' President and his feelings toward Flynn and, that still remains .... 835

------------------------


835 11/22/17 Voicemail Transcript, President's Personal Counsel to Counsel for Michael Flynn

------------------

Now, I understand that most average Americans do not understand what an ellipsis means (you know, those ... you see) but trust me, lawyers and smart people do.

Average Americans also don't understand what [ ] used in the manner they were above mean, but trust me, lawyers and smart people do.

John Dowd knows full well what he told Michael Flynn on Nov 22, 2017. He also has known all along that what was reported in the Mueller report was basically a summation (if you will) of that conversation. This is nothing new and not to him.

The transcript to the court was no bombshell.

Once again, this is people making a big deal over nothing. But since most people only believe and understand what the talking heads on their favorite news channel or twitter feed tell them and cannot think for themselves, I guess it is not surprising.


Now, with all of that said. Should they have just put the entire conversation in there? Yes. Because it really does not change anything either way you read it.
Seems one of the preeminent legal minds in the country who is not a republican completely disagrees with you. Just because the leftist stations chose to ignore stories that donít fit their narrative doesnít mean itís not true or very relevant. If youíre interested you could skip to the 2m mark to hear an impartial expert state his thoughts on the topic and Iíll tell you, Iíll take Mr. Dershowitz's word on a critical legal opinion over some really angry, foul mouthed guy on a website.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/video...yer/vi-AAClpnS
__________________
__________________
"The Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms.Ē Samuel Adams
Appreciate 1
gjm1201067.00

      06-04-2019, 09:37 AM   #39
Genieman
First Lieutenant
192
Rep
303
Posts

 
Drives: 340i xDrive
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: United States

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Schwarzschild Radius View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Genieman View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Schwarzschild Radius View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Genieman View Post
Well in the US, people are innocent until proven guilty, and therefore the onus is on you to justify the need for prosecution. So why don't you please provide the specific quotes/sections that you think warrant prosecution. Please also specify the specific laws that are broken in the conduct you intend to quote.

My point in challenging you isn't to show you that he shouldn't be prosecuted. It's to highlight the point that most people on the investigative team were slightly biased against trump personally, so if there was a remote chance that there was sufficient evidence to justify a charge based on a specific rule/law that was broken, they would have pursued it. Things that he has done that are not nice or icky do not qualify for prosecution and no one is saying that he didn't do things that were immoral or unpresidential, just that he didn't do enough to have a clear and shut case against him.
Evidence that they are biased? Besides Hannity.
"publicly available voter registration information shows that 13 of the 17 members of Mueller's team have previously registered as Democrats, while four had no affiliation or their affiliation could not be found.

Nine of the 17 made political donations to Democrats, their contributions totaling more than $57,000. The majority came from one person, who also contributed to Republicans. Six donated to Hillary Clinton, Trump's opponent in the 2016 race."

https://www.google.com/amp/s/beta.wa...outputType=amp
Thats evidence?

C'mon, prove they were biased.
I don't know what your personal definition of "bias" is, but the official definition of bias does not impute actions, it imputes a partiality for, or against, something.

"Bias - prejudice in favor of or against one thing, person, or group compared with another, usually in a way considered to be unfair."

So per the official definition of the word bias, I provided exact and specific evidence of bias on the part of the investigative team. If that's still insufficient for you, I would suggest that you reflect on your own personal bias.

FWIW, I wasn't implying that their bias resulted in inappropriate conduct, but rather that despite their partiality, as is evidenced by their party affiliations and donations, they still didn't move to bring charges, which is more of an exoneration than if someone who was truly impartial, or biased towards him, chose not to bring charges forward.
Appreciate 0
      06-04-2019, 09:54 AM   #40
Captain Blood
Pirate and thief, avast
Captain Blood's Avatar
United_States
7894
Rep
10,129
Posts

 
Drives: 135i DCT
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Tortuga

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
2012 135  [5.00]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Genieman View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Schwarzschild Radius View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Genieman View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Schwarzschild Radius View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Genieman View Post
Well in the US, people are innocent until proven guilty, and therefore the onus is on you to justify the need for prosecution. So why don't you please provide the specific quotes/sections that you think warrant prosecution. Please also specify the specific laws that are broken in the conduct you intend to quote.

My point in challenging you isn't to show you that he shouldn't be prosecuted. It's to highlight the point that most people on the investigative team were slightly biased against trump personally, so if there was a remote chance that there was sufficient evidence to justify a charge based on a specific rule/law that was broken, they would have pursued it. Things that he has done that are not nice or icky do not qualify for prosecution and no one is saying that he didn't do things that were immoral or unpresidential, just that he didn't do enough to have a clear and shut case against him.
Evidence that they are biased? Besides Hannity.
"publicly available voter registration information shows that 13 of the 17 members of Mueller's team have previously registered as Democrats, while four had no affiliation or their affiliation could not be found.

Nine of the 17 made political donations to Democrats, their contributions totaling more than $57,000. The majority came from one person, who also contributed to Republicans. Six donated to Hillary Clinton, Trump's opponent in the 2016 race."

https://www.google.com/amp/s/beta.wa...outputType=amp
Thats evidence?

C'mon, prove they were biased.
I don't know what your personal definition of "bias" is, but the official definition of bias does not impute actions, it imputes a partiality for, or against, something.

"Bias - prejudice in favor of or against one thing, person, or group compared with another, usually in a way considered to be unfair."

So per the official definition of the word bias, I provided exact and specific evidence of bias on the part of the investigative team. If that's still insufficient for you, I would suggest that you reflect on your own personal bias.

FWIW, I wasn't implying that their bias resulted in inappropriate conduct, but rather that despite their partiality, as is evidenced by their party affiliations and donations, they still didn't move to bring charges, which is more of an exoneration than if someone who was truly impartial, or biased towards him, chose not to bring charges forward.
Frankly, you typed a lot to say the same thing. What evidence of bias is there, besides political affiliation? Past evidence, present evidence?

It seems Mueller is of the highest ethical and professional standards. You're welcome to point out where I am wrong on this.
__________________
I am serious, and don't call me Shirley.
Appreciate 0
      06-04-2019, 10:01 AM   #41
Genieman
First Lieutenant
192
Rep
303
Posts

 
Drives: 340i xDrive
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: United States

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Schwarzschild Radius View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Genieman View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Schwarzschild Radius View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Genieman View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Schwarzschild Radius View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Genieman View Post
Well in the US, people are innocent until proven guilty, and therefore the onus is on you to justify the need for prosecution. So why don't you please provide the specific quotes/sections that you think warrant prosecution. Please also specify the specific laws that are broken in the conduct you intend to quote.

My point in challenging you isn't to show you that he shouldn't be prosecuted. It's to highlight the point that most people on the investigative team were slightly biased against trump personally, so if there was a remote chance that there was sufficient evidence to justify a charge based on a specific rule/law that was broken, they would have pursued it. Things that he has done that are not nice or icky do not qualify for prosecution and no one is saying that he didn't do things that were immoral or unpresidential, just that he didn't do enough to have a clear and shut case against him.
Evidence that they are biased? Besides Hannity.
"publicly available voter registration information shows that 13 of the 17 members of Mueller's team have previously registered as Democrats, while four had no affiliation or their affiliation could not be found.

Nine of the 17 made political donations to Democrats, their contributions totaling more than $57,000. The majority came from one person, who also contributed to Republicans. Six donated to Hillary Clinton, Trump's opponent in the 2016 race."

https://www.google.com/amp/s/beta.wa...outputType=amp
Thats evidence?

C'mon, prove they were biased.
I don't know what your personal definition of "bias" is, but the official definition of bias does not impute actions, it imputes a partiality for, or against, something.

"Bias - prejudice in favor of or against one thing, person, or group compared with another, usually in a way considered to be unfair."

So per the official definition of the word bias, I provided exact and specific evidence of bias on the part of the investigative team. If that's still insufficient for you, I would suggest that you reflect on your own personal bias.

FWIW, I wasn't implying that their bias resulted in inappropriate conduct, but rather that despite their partiality, as is evidenced by their party affiliations and donations, they still didn't move to bring charges, which is more of an exoneration than if someone who was truly impartial, or biased towards him, chose not to bring charges forward.
Frankly, you typed a lot to say the same thing. What evidence of bias is there, besides political affiliation? Past evidence, present evidence?

It seems Mueller is of the highest ethical and professional standards. You're welcome to point out where I am wrong on this.
I'm not sure where you're getting stuck but let's try it this way:

Disproportionate political affiliation with the opposing party on the part of the investigative team = bias

Your affiliation IS your bias.

And again, i am not saying their bias caused them to act inappropriately but bias =\= actions.
Appreciate 0
      06-04-2019, 10:30 AM   #42
Captain Blood
Pirate and thief, avast
Captain Blood's Avatar
United_States
7894
Rep
10,129
Posts

 
Drives: 135i DCT
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Tortuga

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
2012 135  [5.00]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Genieman View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Schwarzschild Radius View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Genieman View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Schwarzschild Radius View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Genieman View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Schwarzschild Radius View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Genieman View Post
Well in the US, people are innocent until proven guilty, and therefore the onus is on you to justify the need for prosecution. So why don't you please provide the specific quotes/sections that you think warrant prosecution. Please also specify the specific laws that are broken in the conduct you intend to quote.

My point in challenging you isn't to show you that he shouldn't be prosecuted. It's to highlight the point that most people on the investigative team were slightly biased against trump personally, so if there was a remote chance that there was sufficient evidence to justify a charge based on a specific rule/law that was broken, they would have pursued it. Things that he has done that are not nice or icky do not qualify for prosecution and no one is saying that he didn't do things that were immoral or unpresidential, just that he didn't do enough to have a clear and shut case against him.
Evidence that they are biased? Besides Hannity.
"publicly available voter registration information shows that 13 of the 17 members of Mueller's team have previously registered as Democrats, while four had no affiliation or their affiliation could not be found.

Nine of the 17 made political donations to Democrats, their contributions totaling more than $57,000. The majority came from one person, who also contributed to Republicans. Six donated to Hillary Clinton, Trump's opponent in the 2016 race."

https://www.google.com/amp/s/beta.wa...outputType=amp
Thats evidence?

C'mon, prove they were biased.
I don't know what your personal definition of "bias" is, but the official definition of bias does not impute actions, it imputes a partiality for, or against, something.

"Bias - prejudice in favor of or against one thing, person, or group compared with another, usually in a way considered to be unfair."

So per the official definition of the word bias, I provided exact and specific evidence of bias on the part of the investigative team. If that's still insufficient for you, I would suggest that you reflect on your own personal bias.

FWIW, I wasn't implying that their bias resulted in inappropriate conduct, but rather that despite their partiality, as is evidenced by their party affiliations and donations, they still didn't move to bring charges, which is more of an exoneration than if someone who was truly impartial, or biased towards him, chose not to bring charges forward.
Frankly, you typed a lot to say the same thing. What evidence of bias is there, besides political affiliation? Past evidence, present evidence?

It seems Mueller is of the highest ethical and professional standards. You're welcome to point out where I am wrong on this.
I'm not sure where you're getting stuck but let's try it this way:

Disproportionate political affiliation with the opposing party on the part of the investigative team = bias

Your affiliation IS your bias.

And again, i am not saying their bias caused them to act inappropriately but bias =\= actions.
In another thread, you are asking Irish for specific instances, and on this thread you go for a blanket statement.

Based on your assumptions about party affiliations, then we must assume the Mueller investigation skewed towards Trump, as Mueller is a registered republican. Imagine how damning the special councils report would have been if it had been headed by a Democrat.
__________________
I am serious, and don't call me Shirley.
Appreciate 2
vtown56.00
minn195778.50

      06-04-2019, 10:40 AM   #43
Genieman
First Lieutenant
192
Rep
303
Posts

 
Drives: 340i xDrive
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: United States

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Schwarzschild Radius View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Genieman View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Schwarzschild Radius View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Genieman View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Schwarzschild Radius View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Genieman View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Schwarzschild Radius View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Genieman View Post
Well in the US, people are innocent until proven guilty, and therefore the onus is on you to justify the need for prosecution. So why don't you please provide the specific quotes/sections that you think warrant prosecution. Please also specify the specific laws that are broken in the conduct you intend to quote.

My point in challenging you isn't to show you that he shouldn't be prosecuted. It's to highlight the point that most people on the investigative team were slightly biased against trump personally, so if there was a remote chance that there was sufficient evidence to justify a charge based on a specific rule/law that was broken, they would have pursued it. Things that he has done that are not nice or icky do not qualify for prosecution and no one is saying that he didn't do things that were immoral or unpresidential, just that he didn't do enough to have a clear and shut case against him.
Evidence that they are biased? Besides Hannity.
"publicly available voter registration information shows that 13 of the 17 members of Mueller's team have previously registered as Democrats, while four had no affiliation or their affiliation could not be found.

Nine of the 17 made political donations to Democrats, their contributions totaling more than $57,000. The majority came from one person, who also contributed to Republicans. Six donated to Hillary Clinton, Trump's opponent in the 2016 race."

https://www.google.com/amp/s/beta.wa...outputType=amp
Thats evidence?

C'mon, prove they were biased.
I don't know what your personal definition of "bias" is, but the official definition of bias does not impute actions, it imputes a partiality for, or against, something.

"Bias - prejudice in favor of or against one thing, person, or group compared with another, usually in a way considered to be unfair."

So per the official definition of the word bias, I provided exact and specific evidence of bias on the part of the investigative team. If that's still insufficient for you, I would suggest that you reflect on your own personal bias.

FWIW, I wasn't implying that their bias resulted in inappropriate conduct, but rather that despite their partiality, as is evidenced by their party affiliations and donations, they still didn't move to bring charges, which is more of an exoneration than if someone who was truly impartial, or biased towards him, chose not to bring charges forward.
Frankly, you typed a lot to say the same thing. What evidence of bias is there, besides political affiliation? Past evidence, present evidence?

It seems Mueller is of the highest ethical and professional standards. You're welcome to point out where I am wrong on this.
I'm not sure where you're getting stuck but let's try it this way:

Disproportionate political affiliation with the opposing party on the part of the investigative team = bias

Your affiliation IS your bias.

And again, i am not saying their bias caused them to act inappropriately but bias =\= actions.
In another thread, you are asking Irish for specific instances, and on this thread you go for a blanket statement.

Based on your assumptions about party affiliations, then we must assume the Mueller investigation skewed towards Trump, as Mueller is a registered republican. Imagine how damning the special councils report would have been if it had been headed by a Democrat.
In the other thread I asked for evidence in regards to an unsubstantiated claim of guilt/negligence on the part of the govt because custody in and of itself doesn't PROVE guilt or negligence. You have to demonstrate how the actions or inaction on the part of the accused directly lead to the deaths as opposed to other factors.

Here, you are asking me for evidence of bias, but bias isn't an action. It's a partiality towards or against something. I showed you their bias by showing you their disproportionate affiliation and donations. And I was very clear to specify that I am not claiming they acted wrongly as a result of said bias.
Appreciate 0
      06-04-2019, 10:51 AM   #44
ScottyRyan2019
Licensed Professional Slacker
ScottyRyan2019's Avatar
United_States
516
Rep
402
Posts

 
Drives: BMW 340i xDrive and BMW X3 M40
Join Date: Mar 2019
Location: St Paul, MN

iTrader: (0)

Yes, I am sure none of these career law enforcement people were able to set their political affiliations aside to do their jobs professionally. Cheese and Rice. Why does everything have to be some big conspiracy?
Appreciate 5
Lups10891.50
wdb1533.50
minn195778.50

Post Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:58 PM.




5post
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
1Addicts.com, BIMMERPOST.com, E90Post.com, F30Post.com, M3Post.com, ZPost.com, 5Post.com, 6Post.com, 7Post.com, XBimmers.com logo and trademark are properties of BIMMERPOST