The Unofficial *Official* Politics Thread

https://twitter.com/seanmdav/status/923025601396723712



https://twitter.com/seanmdav/status/923025966661820416?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
 
Sen. Richard Blumenthal also leveled charges of treason:
As a former prosecutor, my reaction was these e-mails are a textbook example and evidence of criminal intent. I can almost hear the closing arguments of the jury using “I love it,” repeating again and again, “I love it.” Those three words are going to haunt Donald Trump Jr. Because they are a clear signal that he is looking for information, dirt, on Hillary Clinton from the Russian government and expecting an agent of the Russian government to be providing it to him, and having the meeting showing, and again signalling, the Trump campaign is open for business. We will accept information no matter how it is obtained legally or illegally. And that is potentially a violation of the FBI, yes, treason, and it is potentially a violation of the prohibitions of defrauding the government through conspiracy, against cyber fraud and abuse. There are a slew of statutes that may have been violated here.
 
giphy.gif



Justice Department provides FBI Uranium One informant to Congress | Fox News
 
https://twitter.com/brithume/status/939507985121980416

Deep in this story we learn that top Mueller aide Andrew Weissmann, who was then head of the Justice dept fraud section, attended HRC’s election-night party in NY. Now he’s investigating the man who beat HRC.


This whole thing is a joke and needs to be blown up and done with
 
House of Wax said:
https://twitter.com/brithume/status/939507985121980416

Deep in this story we learn that top Mueller aide Andrew Weissmann, who was then head of the Justice dept fraud section, attended HRC’s election-night party in NY. Now he’s investigating the man who beat HRC.


This whole thing is a joke and needs to be blown up and done with
Click to expand...

I guess by that logic judges can`t try cases...because clearly they personally, would have to agree with one side or the other, which would make them biased against the other side, and unable to render a fair judgment. And then also we really can`t have any sort of criminal justice system anymore, because clearly, according to your logic, all jurors are going to have a bias. And surely we can`t have any law enforcement officers, because if they have any political, national, ethnic, religious, or other biases, they won`t be able to do their job properly, so I guess all we`re left with is anarchy.

Or is it possible that people, whether they be judges, jurors, policemen, or even, God forbid, members of Mueller`s team, can put aside their personal biases and do their jobs based on the facts and merits thereof? I feel like I`m listening to a discussion at the kid`s table.
 
@Setec Astronomy, while I understand your point, any of the examples you have given are instances where biases are evident and easy to see. We all have our own biases, it’s almost impossible to find someone who is an absolute neurtral. It’s nice to believe that people can flip a switch and turn it on and off but I honestly don’t believe it’s that easy. Jury selection is nothing more that trying to find someone who thinks the way you do. The best we can do is try to avoid the glaring examples that show in a person’s life and hope that integrity exists. Are the examples listed above glaring? I’m sure there are as many yes responses as there are no’s. Yeah, I have been known to sit at the Thanksgiving kids table.
 
So many of you are men of faith, yet you seem to have no faith in humanity. So many of you are quick to jump in when a story surfaces about a cop shooting someone, that there are a few bad apples, who are not representative of LEO`s in general. But a Mueller aide, who, let`s say, is unable to control his biases, makes "the whole thing a joke"? Couldn`t that be one bad apple, and not representative of the whole bunch?

I seem to remember some liberal President calling the Soviet Union the "evil empire", and had a motto about "trust but verify". I`m sorry, but until this whole thing with the Russians shakes out, I`m going to side with that liberal President...his name was Ronald Reagan.
 
There might be a little more faith in the process if his whole team wasn`t staffed with dem supporters, some specifically against the sitting POTUS. You know, kinda like how both sides get to interview potential jurors before they agree/select them.

I`ll leave a seat open for ya at the adult`s table
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top