|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On May 02 2018 06:25 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2018 06:13 Mohdoo wrote:On May 02 2018 05:55 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 02 2018 05:53 Mohdoo wrote:On May 02 2018 05:41 GreenHorizons wrote:
I can't help but wonder...
If Mueller finishes and in no way recommends that Trump be prosecuted, or like Comey basically says "no lawyer would take this case and win", for liberals, does that mean Trump shouldn't be prosecuted, Mueller and the justice system failed, or something else? It wouldn't surprise me if he did just barely scratch by without doing something technically technically teccchhhniccaalllly illegal. I do expect it will have some amount of "we can't prove Trump knew ____", but in that case, I expect Trump Jr or Kushner to go down. I think your question is kind of silly though because there are a million things that could happen. "Trump not being prosecuted" is itself a very broad thing. The nuance is what matters and will depend a lot on what we are provided with and ...millions of other things. I don't think there is value in speculating at this point. Outside of prosecution and impeachment (which I've always thought were pipe dreams) what then are some of the "millions of other things" that would not make this mostly a colossal waste of time and attention? Trump Jr taken down, Kushner taken down, more evidence Russia made a concentrated attempt to fuck with us. More evidence Wikileaks is just a branch of Russian intelligence at this point. There are all sorts of outcomes that would justify the investigation. NRA money exposed. Changes to how campaign funding works after "the trump campaign unknowingly taking money from Russia". There's bazillions of outcomes. I don't think any of those are coming or those that to some degree have or will should take a Mueller investigation to get there. Most of that, if not all (true or not) should be handled with moderate electoral awareness and a remotely competent press. Neither of which we'll have at the end of this. But maybe there are some realistic or significant ones in the bazillions I'm not considering or aren't being brought up. Those are really what I'm looking for.
Shrug. We know an insanely small amount. I may as well speculate how many tacos exist on a planet 900 billion light years away. You and I have no capability to know anything remotely near enough to speculate.
And for the record, there are 94 tacos on phi-x-48430
|
How the final report is written/what is in it should tell us a lot about how thorough the investigation was. I'm confident it will be comprehensive, but only time will tell.
Regarding his character, I've seen significantly more positive than negative. That and he has surrounded himself with consummate professionals by all indications.
|
On May 02 2018 06:38 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2018 06:25 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 02 2018 06:13 Mohdoo wrote:On May 02 2018 05:55 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 02 2018 05:53 Mohdoo wrote:On May 02 2018 05:41 GreenHorizons wrote:
I can't help but wonder...
If Mueller finishes and in no way recommends that Trump be prosecuted, or like Comey basically says "no lawyer would take this case and win", for liberals, does that mean Trump shouldn't be prosecuted, Mueller and the justice system failed, or something else? It wouldn't surprise me if he did just barely scratch by without doing something technically technically teccchhhniccaalllly illegal. I do expect it will have some amount of "we can't prove Trump knew ____", but in that case, I expect Trump Jr or Kushner to go down. I think your question is kind of silly though because there are a million things that could happen. "Trump not being prosecuted" is itself a very broad thing. The nuance is what matters and will depend a lot on what we are provided with and ...millions of other things. I don't think there is value in speculating at this point. Outside of prosecution and impeachment (which I've always thought were pipe dreams) what then are some of the "millions of other things" that would not make this mostly a colossal waste of time and attention? Trump Jr taken down, Kushner taken down, more evidence Russia made a concentrated attempt to fuck with us. More evidence Wikileaks is just a branch of Russian intelligence at this point. There are all sorts of outcomes that would justify the investigation. NRA money exposed. Changes to how campaign funding works after "the trump campaign unknowingly taking money from Russia". There's bazillions of outcomes. I don't think any of those are coming or those that to some degree have or will should take a Mueller investigation to get there. Most of that, if not all (true or not) should be handled with moderate electoral awareness and a remotely competent press. Neither of which we'll have at the end of this. But maybe there are some realistic or significant ones in the bazillions I'm not considering or aren't being brought up. Those are really what I'm looking for. EDIT: Also people really don't have a problem with trusting a guy who was so deceptive and acted so questionably after 9/11 while at the FBI (a pretty terrible institution)? His questionable integrity goes back further than that.
In 2001, the four men convicted of Teddy Deegan’s murder were exonerated. Turned out the FBI let them take the rap to protect one of their informants, a killer named Vincent “Jimmy’’ Flemmi, who just happened to be the brother of their other rat, Stevie Flemmi. Thanks to the FBI’s corruption, taxpayers got stuck with the $100 million bill for compensating the framed men, two of whom, Greco and Tameleo, died in prison.
Albano was appalled that, later that same year, Mueller was appointed FBI director, because it was Mueller, first as an assistant US attorney then as the acting US attorney in Boston, who wrote letters to the parole and pardons board throughout the 1980s opposing clemency for the four men framed by FBI lies.
www.bostonglobe.com Shrug. We know an insanely small amount. I may as well speculate how many tacos exist on a planet 900 billion light years away. You and I have no capability to know anything remotely near enough to speculate. And for the record, there are 94 tacos on phi-x-48430
I feel like we know more than enough that the electorate and system should remove Trump asap, for me, there's nothing that could come out of the Mueller investigation that could justify not having him removed from office.
So it's outcome is rather irrelevant to me in that way. It's outcome merely serves as a signal of just how broken/failed the system is, it's passed the point of having any redeeming qualities in my view. That's why I was looking for potential outcomes that would be redeeming. If we can't speculate on them, I suspect they likely don't exist.
Perhaps we don't know some big bombshells Mueller's been able to keep under wraps, but it sure feels like anything even remotely significant has already been put out there publicly at least in speculative allegation form. To that point I'm pretty confident whatever comes out will be less of an indictment than already widely believed allegations.
On May 02 2018 06:45 On_Slaught wrote:
How the final report is written/what is in it should tell us a lot about how thorough the investigation was. I'm confident it will be comprehensive, but only time will tell.
Regarding his character, I've seen significantly more positive than negative. That and he has surrounded himself with consummate proffesionsals by all indications.
Bruh, he fought to keep 4 people he knew were innocent (two of which died in prison btw) from getting clemency for a crime the FBI framed them for. Takes a lot of 'positive' to outweigh that for me. Especially without a mea culpa.
I'm no lawyer, but it's hard for me to imagine something much worse than that to do if 'justice' is anything more than a mask for someone.
EDIT: Bonus points for this being the person with the most integrity/competence they could find in the entire country to do this job in the first place (hint: he was just the most politically acceptable)
|
Looking into it, it's a pretty fucked up story for sure and does make me think less of him. Ofc, there are a lot of unanswered questions surrounding it which may make it better or worse for him.
Still, like I said he has over a dozen of the best prosecutors in the country with him. Further, this will get massive publicity. Therefore he will have to be able to prove any assertions he makes. As long as the dots are connected by evidence in the report, I'm good. And these people are the best at doing just that.
|
On May 02 2018 07:08 On_Slaught wrote:
Looking into it, it's a pretty fucked up story for sure and does make me think less of him. Ofc, there are a lot of unanswered questions surrounding it which may make it better or worse for him.
Still, like I said he has over a dozen of the best prosecutors in the country with him. Further, this will get massive publicity. Therefore he will have to be able to prove any assertions he makes. As long as the dots are connected by evidence in the report, I'm good. And these people are the best at doing just that.
See, that's what I don't get?
Why do you think the people he surrounded himself with aren't exactly the type of people that surrounded him while he was doing that?
That's the stuff that got him put in charge of the FBI and this investigation in the first place imo.
Since I pointed out from the jump about his role in the NFL/Ray Rice incident, his M.O. isn't the pillar of integrity so many people pushed in the media and so many more ate up uncritically, it's to manipulate the system to get people in power off, while still maintaining a facade of credibility/integrity.
His job in this investigation was to navigate the swamp of the 2016 election without seriously indicting any of the many, many, many, bad actors. Mueller was especially attractive in that while essentially being a Republican, he was sufficiently loyal to power that he had no intention of turning it into looking too deeply at the Democrat actors (remember Podesta did have to step down as a result of pressure from the Mueller investigation).
The NFL, the helping the FBI frame innocent men and working to keep them imprisoned until 2 of them died, the extrajudicial shit after 9/11 are just some of the stuff we know about (some of us learning after vouching for his integrity, awk), that none of folks preferred outlets likely brought this to their attention should make them seriously question why the first they are hearing of it is from some guy on a forum and not a journalist attempting to inform them honestly and thoroughly about Mueller's history.
EDIT: That goes for people on the right who have been seeing Mueller attacked and undermined in their preferred media but not the whole helping the FBI frame innocent men (which would be a pretty big one in your corner) part. That should really make you wonder.
|
As a minor note I thought the NYT article says that they got the info from the Trump side and that they aren't the questions verbatim. I think the big reveal is in the article we supposedly read.
But while I'm here...
I've actually seen heard some right leaning media mention the whole locking up four innocent men thing. Not a lot though.
But this whole ridiculous situation will only be justified if there is some sort of actionable "collusion." If all we learn is that Roger Stone knew that Russia had DNC emails then this whole thing has been a waste. The obstruction part of this is garbage, although I don't have time to rehash that again. But if there is no real conspiracy then Mueller has to get him on obstruction or else he looks like a giant failure. And given one of his lead prosecutors is so obnoxious he's been reversed by the Supreme Court at least once I have no doubt they'll make it look as bad as possible.
|
1. It probably shouldn't be a surprise at this point that others aren't as cynical about the government and its ability to not be evil as you are GH. You are ignoring decades of his work and distilling it to a few examples. It's just as disengenuous to lump the other prosecutors in as corrupt shills by association.
2. Who vouched for his integrity (at least I dont recall saying this...)? I said this is our best chance to provide cover for Congress and bring Trump's shady dealings to light. You may have issues with his judgement, but none of your examples are a critique of his capability.
3. Regarding fairness, sure you can be wary of this aspect. But such concerns should be tempered by the public nature of this investigation and the scruity that will be placed on his report.
4. I consume A LOT of news from A LOT of different sites (more recently since I get less news from this thread), even conservative ones, and I've never heard that framing story till now (had heard about the other two stories and dont really care as it relates to this). I agree that says something less than stellar about journalism currently. Or maybe I'm just blind, dunno.
5. I'm genuinely curious what GH considers the alternative to Mueller and gang to be. Do we just ignore Trumps transgressions and fight at the ballot box? Put in place a different special prosecutor? If so, who? Do we create a time machine, go back in time and elect Sanders? What is preferable to a bunch of seasoned prosecutors with near limitless resources and authority doing what they do best? I suppose for you that last line is exactly the problem.
|
On May 02 2018 08:00 Introvert wrote:
As a minor note I thought the NYT article says that they got the info from the Trump side and that they aren't the questions verbatim. I think the big reveal is in the article we supposedly read.
But while I'm here...
I've actually seen heard some right leaning media mention the whole locking up four innocent men thing. Not a lot though.
But this whole ridiculous situation will only be justified if there is some sort of actionable "collusion." If all we learn is that Roger Stone knew that Russia had DNC emails then this whole thing has been a waste. The obstruction part of this is garbage, although I don't have time to rehash that again. But if there is no real conspiracy then Mueller has to get him on obstruction or else he looks like a giant failure. And given one of his lead prosecutors is so obnoxious he's been reversed by the Supreme Court at least once I have no doubt they'll make it look as bad as possible.
The investigation isn’t about finding collusion. It is about Russia attempted meddling in the 2016 elections and to what extent those efforts reached the Trump team. And that investigation was started due to a lot of real evidence, including some some pretty dumb phone calls and one very real meeting with Trump Jr. There have been over a dozen indictments in the case, from Russian nationals to Flynn, Gates and Manafort. So I am not really seeing how this entire thing has been a waste, since there was more than ample wrong doing discovered during the investigation.
And for balance there is a public effort a handful of House Republicans and members of the Trump administration to seize control of the Justice department, and by extension, the FBI. These are not the actions of folks interested in the cool, impartial application of justice.
|
On May 02 2018 08:03 On_Slaught wrote:
1. It probably shouldn't be a surprise at this point that others aren't as cynical about the government and its ability to not be evil as you are GH. You are ignoring decades of his work and distilling it to a few examples. It's just as disengenuous to lump the other prosecutors in as corrupt shills by association.
2. Who vouched for his integrity (at least I dont recall saying this...)? I said this is our best chance to provide cover for Congress and bring Trump's shady dealings to light. You may have issues with his judgement, but none of your examples are a critique of his capability.
3. Regarding fairness, sure you can be wary of this aspect. But such concerns should be tempered by the public nature of this investigation and the scruity that will be placed on his report.
4. I consume A LOT of news from A LOT of different sites, even conservative ones, and I've never heard that framing story till now (had heard about the other two stories and dont really care as it relates to this). I agree that says something less than stellar about journalism currently. Or maybe I'm just blind, dunno.
5. I'm genuinely curious what GH considers the alternative to Mueller and gang to be. Do we just ignore Trumps transgressions and fight at the ballot box? Put in place a different special prosecutor? If so, who? Do we create a time machine, go back in time and elect Sanders? What is preferable to a bunch of seasoned prosecutors with near limitless resources and authority doing what they do best?
1. No, not "a few examples", basically any part of his career pointed to as good, has something like this in the background. I'm not ignoring his work, I'm paying critical attention to it.
2. Pretty much all of congress, every major outlet, and most of the Democrat posters here. If you want to pretend that what you were saying previously doesn't equate to "I think Mueller is a man of significant integrity" we can just agree to disagree on that.
3. All of that stuff was pretty public. There was a whole book laying out their innocence in the 80's and everyone in the town pretty much knew. You place undue faith in the "public" nature of this trial and those involved imo and haven't given me any reason to believe as you do.
4.You aren't blind, they intentionally obscured it. It says something more significant that "less than stellar" performance. They fawned all over him and his supposed unimpeachable integrity. People just accepted it uncritically.
5.I don't know why you're referring to me in that fashion as if I'm not here but...
People realize this is all a sham and decide we're going to do something about it?
|
I apologize for the 3rd person usage. I was typing it as it sounded in my head. No offense meant. 
Ok I'll bite. What is the something we can do about it? Based on your police policy views, I imagine this involves some pretty significant changes... Revolution? Constitutional amendments? Destruction of the two party system? I think we can all agree on less shitty candidates.
If I've missed your recommendation on a previous page, feel free to point me in that direction.
|
On May 02 2018 08:25 On_Slaught wrote:I apologize for the 3rd person usage. I was typing it as it sounded in my head. No offense meant. Ok I'll bite. What is the something we can do about it? Based on your police policy views, I imagine this involves some pretty significant changes... Revolution? Constitutional amendments? Destruction of the two party system? I think we can all agree on less shitty candidates. If I've missed your recommendation on a previous page, feel free to point me in that direction.
Accepting that scheduling a revolution for next Tuesday isn't 'pragmatic' or one spontaneously erupting today on May Day unlikely, I'd say raising class consciousness through these types of performative displays (the investigation). Connecting people's frustrations and the failures in the system they see all around them with those in the powerful positions and responsible for the problems they see every day getting worse while not being addressed. Then arm them with the rhetoric, tools, and goals it's going to take to inspire the revolution it will inevitably take to oust those responsible from their positions of power. While also preparing them by honestly presenting the harsh and unforgiving world both paths will traverse (revolution or chasing reform).
If I had to sum it up briefly anyway.
|
On May 02 2018 06:47 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2018 06:45 On_Slaught wrote:
How the final report is written/what is in it should tell us a lot about how thorough the investigation was. I'm confident it will be comprehensive, but only time will tell.
Regarding his character, I've seen significantly more positive than negative. That and he has surrounded himself with consummate proffesionsals by all indications.
Bruh, he fought to keep 4 people he knew were innocent (two of which died in prison btw) from getting clemency for a crime the FBI framed them for. Takes a lot of 'positive' to outweigh that for me. Especially without a mea culpa. I'm no lawyer, but it's hard for me to imagine something much worse than that to do if 'justice' is anything more than a mask for someone. EDIT: Bonus points for this being the person with the most integrity/competence they could find in the entire country to do this job in the first place (hint: he was just the most politically acceptable)
Was Robert Mueller, the special counsel, complicit in one of the worst scandals in the F.B.I.’s history — the decades-long wrongful imprisonment of four men for a murder they didn’t commit?
This question, which has been raised before, is being addressed again — this time by some of President Trump’s most ardent supporters on the right, especially Fox News’s Sean Hannity but also Rush Limbaugh and others. My friend Alan Dershowitz, the retired Harvard Law School professor, has also weighed in.
In an April 8 interview with John Catsimatidis on his New York radio show, Mr. Dershowitz asserted that Mr. Mueller was “the guy who kept four innocent people in prison for many years in order to protect the cover of Whitey Bulger as an F.B.I. informer.” Mr. Mueller, he said, was “right at the center of it.” Mr. Bulger was a notorious crime boss in Boston, the head of the Winter Hill Gang, and also a secret source for the F.B.I.
There is no evidence that the assertion is true. I was the federal judge who presided over a successful lawsuit brought against the government by two of those men and the families of the other two, who had died in prison. Based on the voluminous evidence submitted in the trial, and having written a 105-page decision awarding them $101.8 million, I can say without equivocation that Mr. Mueller, who worked in the United States attorney’s office in Boston from 1982 to 1988, including a brief stint as the acting head of the office, had no involvement in that case. He was never even mentioned.
The case wasn’t about Whitey Bulger but another mobster the F.B.I. was also protecting, the hit man Joseph Barboza, who lied when he testified that the four men had killed Edward Deegan, a low-level mobster, in 1965. Mr. Barboza was covering for the real killers, and the F.B.I. went along because of his importance as an informant.
But the evidence — or rather, lack of it — hasn’t stopped the piling on against Mr. Mueller, particularly by Mr. Hannity. In a March 20 broadcast, he said, “Robert Mueller was the U.S. attorney in charge while these men were rotting in prison while certain agents in the F.B.I. under Mueller covered up the truth.” www.nytimes.com
I added some emphasis to the above.
Mueller almost certainly had nothing to do with those people being kept in jail.
|
On May 02 2018 10:38 Kyadytim wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2018 06:47 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 02 2018 06:45 On_Slaught wrote:
How the final report is written/what is in it should tell us a lot about how thorough the investigation was. I'm confident it will be comprehensive, but only time will tell.
Regarding his character, I've seen significantly more positive than negative. That and he has surrounded himself with consummate proffesionsals by all indications.
Bruh, he fought to keep 4 people he knew were innocent (two of which died in prison btw) from getting clemency for a crime the FBI framed them for. Takes a lot of 'positive' to outweigh that for me. Especially without a mea culpa. I'm no lawyer, but it's hard for me to imagine something much worse than that to do if 'justice' is anything more than a mask for someone. EDIT: Bonus points for this being the person with the most integrity/competence they could find in the entire country to do this job in the first place (hint: he was just the most politically acceptable) Show nested quote +Was Robert Mueller, the special counsel, complicit in one of the worst scandals in the F.B.I.’s history — the decades-long wrongful imprisonment of four men for a murder they didn’t commit?
This question, which has been raised before, is being addressed again — this time by some of President Trump’s most ardent supporters on the right, especially Fox News’s Sean Hannity but also Rush Limbaugh and others. My friend Alan Dershowitz, the retired Harvard Law School professor, has also weighed in.
In an April 8 interview with John Catsimatidis on his New York radio show, Mr. Dershowitz asserted that Mr. Mueller was “the guy who kept four innocent people in prison for many years in order to protect the cover of Whitey Bulger as an F.B.I. informer.” Mr. Mueller, he said, was “right at the center of it.” Mr. Bulger was a notorious crime boss in Boston, the head of the Winter Hill Gang, and also a secret source for the F.B.I.
There is no evidence that the assertion is true. I was the federal judge who presided over a successful lawsuit brought against the government by two of those men and the families of the other two, who had died in prison. Based on the voluminous evidence submitted in the trial, and having written a 105-page decision awarding them $101.8 million, I can say without equivocation that Mr. Mueller, who worked in the United States attorney’s office in Boston from 1982 to 1988, including a brief stint as the acting head of the office, had no involvement in that case. He was never even mentioned.
The case wasn’t about Whitey Bulger but another mobster the F.B.I. was also protecting, the hit man Joseph Barboza, who lied when he testified that the four men had killed Edward Deegan, a low-level mobster, in 1965. Mr. Barboza was covering for the real killers, and the F.B.I. went along because of his importance as an informant.
But the evidence — or rather, lack of it — hasn’t stopped the piling on against Mr. Mueller, particularly by Mr. Hannity. In a March 20 broadcast, he said, “Robert Mueller was the U.S. attorney in charge while these men were rotting in prison while certain agents in the F.B.I. under Mueller covered up the truth.” www.nytimes.comI added some emphasis to the above. Mueller almost certainly had nothing to do with those people being kept in jail.
That is some interesting information I hadn't seen. Though Hannity and such were saying more than I am. Perhaps he wasn't as personally involved as reported in the globe, though I didn't read anything in there about accountability for anyone responsible at the FBI or the involved local and federal officials.
She also left out from the article text (have to click the link) a pretty important part of the statement she got regarding the person who said they saw the letters Mueller and his colleagues allegedly wrote. Curious timing on that piece though nonetheless.
I did speak to Michael Albano, who served on the Massachusetts parole board for more than a decade, and he swore that he had seen the letter in the parole file in 2001. When he later went back to the file, the letter was not there.
That would explain why judge Gertner did not see the letter, if it existed. Albano, a liberal Democrat who
served as mayor of Springfield, is prepared to submit an affidavit or take a polygraph test swearing to the
existence of that letter, along with the letters of other Boston prosecutors, urging denial of parole
Of course my critique of Mueller's super human integrity goes beyond this specific thing where the FBI he went on to run framed some guys and watched them rot in prison.
|
This might be one if my favorite political videos of all time. Kanye West says he thinks slavery was a choice and gets absolutely demolished for it. I haven't seen Kanye have to directly answer for being such a pile of shit. Him being directly called out so succinctly is very satisfying to me. I think Kanye's perspective on the systematic racism of the country is very toxic and I like seeing him called out for his bullshit.
|
Ex-doctor says Trump dictated letter claiming he would be 'healthiest' president ever
President Trump's former personal physician claims that Trump dictated the 2015 letter he wrote praising the then-presidential candidate’s health.
"He dictated that whole letter. I didn't write that letter," Dr. Harold Bornstein told CNN. "I just made it up as I went along."
"His physical strength and stamina are extraordinary,” read the letter, which Bornstein had initially said he wrote himself. “If elected, Mr. Trump, I can state unequivocally, will be the healthiest individual ever elected to the presidency."
Bornstein now says that Trump had dictated the language as the doctor and his wife drove across Central Park.
“[Trump] dictated the letter and I would tell him what he couldn't put in there," he said. "They came to pick up their letter at 4 o'clock or something."
"That's black humor, that letter. That's my sense of humor," Bornstein added. "It's like the movie 'Fargo': It takes the truth and moves it in a different direction."
Trump had touted the letter ahead of its release on Twitter, saying it would "show perfection."
In September of 2016, Bornstein had defended the letter's effusive tone as a result of a rush he had been in at the time while seeing other patients.
The White House didn't respond to CNN's request for comment.
The new revelation comes hours after Bornstein told NBC News that Trump associates had raided his office in February 2017, seizing medical records on Trump.
“They must have been here for 25 minutes or 30 minutes. It created a lot of chaos,” the doctor said, adding that he felt “raped, frightened and sad.”
The White House pushed back against the account on Tuesday, saying that it was not a "raid" and that it was “standard operating procedure” for the White House medical unit to obtain a newly elected president’s medical records. http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/385765-trumps-ex-doctor-says-trump-dictated-letter-claiming-he-would-be
Well, we all knew that that perfect bill of health was nonsense, but I didn't expect it to be so clearly dictated by Trump.
|
On May 02 2018 11:03 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2018 10:38 Kyadytim wrote:On May 02 2018 06:47 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 02 2018 06:45 On_Slaught wrote:
How the final report is written/what is in it should tell us a lot about how thorough the investigation was. I'm confident it will be comprehensive, but only time will tell.
Regarding his character, I've seen significantly more positive than negative. That and he has surrounded himself with consummate proffesionsals by all indications.
Bruh, he fought to keep 4 people he knew were innocent (two of which died in prison btw) from getting clemency for a crime the FBI framed them for. Takes a lot of 'positive' to outweigh that for me. Especially without a mea culpa. I'm no lawyer, but it's hard for me to imagine something much worse than that to do if 'justice' is anything more than a mask for someone. EDIT: Bonus points for this being the person with the most integrity/competence they could find in the entire country to do this job in the first place (hint: he was just the most politically acceptable) Was Robert Mueller, the special counsel, complicit in one of the worst scandals in the F.B.I.’s history — the decades-long wrongful imprisonment of four men for a murder they didn’t commit?
This question, which has been raised before, is being addressed again — this time by some of President Trump’s most ardent supporters on the right, especially Fox News’s Sean Hannity but also Rush Limbaugh and others. My friend Alan Dershowitz, the retired Harvard Law School professor, has also weighed in.
In an April 8 interview with John Catsimatidis on his New York radio show, Mr. Dershowitz asserted that Mr. Mueller was “the guy who kept four innocent people in prison for many years in order to protect the cover of Whitey Bulger as an F.B.I. informer.” Mr. Mueller, he said, was “right at the center of it.” Mr. Bulger was a notorious crime boss in Boston, the head of the Winter Hill Gang, and also a secret source for the F.B.I.
There is no evidence that the assertion is true. I was the federal judge who presided over a successful lawsuit brought against the government by two of those men and the families of the other two, who had died in prison. Based on the voluminous evidence submitted in the trial, and having written a 105-page decision awarding them $101.8 million, I can say without equivocation that Mr. Mueller, who worked in the United States attorney’s office in Boston from 1982 to 1988, including a brief stint as the acting head of the office, had no involvement in that case. He was never even mentioned.
The case wasn’t about Whitey Bulger but another mobster the F.B.I. was also protecting, the hit man Joseph Barboza, who lied when he testified that the four men had killed Edward Deegan, a low-level mobster, in 1965. Mr. Barboza was covering for the real killers, and the F.B.I. went along because of his importance as an informant.
But the evidence — or rather, lack of it — hasn’t stopped the piling on against Mr. Mueller, particularly by Mr. Hannity. In a March 20 broadcast, he said, “Robert Mueller was the U.S. attorney in charge while these men were rotting in prison while certain agents in the F.B.I. under Mueller covered up the truth.” www.nytimes.comI added some emphasis to the above. Mueller almost certainly had nothing to do with those people being kept in jail. That is some interesting information I hadn't seen. Though Hannity and such were saying more than I am. Perhaps he wasn't as personally involved as reported in the globe, though I didn't read anything in there about accountability for anyone responsible at the FBI or the involved local and federal officials. She also left out from the article text (have to click the link) a pretty important part of the statement she got regarding the person who said they saw the letters Mueller and his colleagues allegedly wrote. Curious timing on that piece though nonetheless. Show nested quote + I did speak to Michael Albano, who served on the Massachusetts parole board for more than a decade, and he swore that he had seen the letter in the parole file in 2001. When he later went back to the file, the letter was not there.
That would explain why judge Gertner did not see the letter, if it existed. Albano, a liberal Democrat who
served as mayor of Springfield, is prepared to submit an affidavit or take a polygraph test swearing to the
existence of that letter, along with the letters of other Boston prosecutors, urging denial of parole Of course my critique of Mueller's super human integrity goes beyond this specific thing where the FBI he went on to run framed some guys and watched them rot in prison.
FYI, I would take Michael J. Albano’s word with a grain of salt. His time as mayor of Springfield ended in receivership. And the parole department in MA does not have a stellar track record for that era either. Especially in the trash fire that is Springfield.
|
On May 02 2018 12:06 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2018 11:03 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 02 2018 10:38 Kyadytim wrote:On May 02 2018 06:47 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 02 2018 06:45 On_Slaught wrote:
How the final report is written/what is in it should tell us a lot about how thorough the investigation was. I'm confident it will be comprehensive, but only time will tell.
Regarding his character, I've seen significantly more positive than negative. That and he has surrounded himself with consummate proffesionsals by all indications.
Bruh, he fought to keep 4 people he knew were innocent (two of which died in prison btw) from getting clemency for a crime the FBI framed them for. Takes a lot of 'positive' to outweigh that for me. Especially without a mea culpa. I'm no lawyer, but it's hard for me to imagine something much worse than that to do if 'justice' is anything more than a mask for someone. EDIT: Bonus points for this being the person with the most integrity/competence they could find in the entire country to do this job in the first place (hint: he was just the most politically acceptable) Was Robert Mueller, the special counsel, complicit in one of the worst scandals in the F.B.I.’s history — the decades-long wrongful imprisonment of four men for a murder they didn’t commit?
This question, which has been raised before, is being addressed again — this time by some of President Trump’s most ardent supporters on the right, especially Fox News’s Sean Hannity but also Rush Limbaugh and others. My friend Alan Dershowitz, the retired Harvard Law School professor, has also weighed in.
In an April 8 interview with John Catsimatidis on his New York radio show, Mr. Dershowitz asserted that Mr. Mueller was “the guy who kept four innocent people in prison for many years in order to protect the cover of Whitey Bulger as an F.B.I. informer.” Mr. Mueller, he said, was “right at the center of it.” Mr. Bulger was a notorious crime boss in Boston, the head of the Winter Hill Gang, and also a secret source for the F.B.I.
There is no evidence that the assertion is true. I was the federal judge who presided over a successful lawsuit brought against the government by two of those men and the families of the other two, who had died in prison. Based on the voluminous evidence submitted in the trial, and having written a 105-page decision awarding them $101.8 million, I can say without equivocation that Mr. Mueller, who worked in the United States attorney’s office in Boston from 1982 to 1988, including a brief stint as the acting head of the office, had no involvement in that case. He was never even mentioned.
The case wasn’t about Whitey Bulger but another mobster the F.B.I. was also protecting, the hit man Joseph Barboza, who lied when he testified that the four men had killed Edward Deegan, a low-level mobster, in 1965. Mr. Barboza was covering for the real killers, and the F.B.I. went along because of his importance as an informant.
But the evidence — or rather, lack of it — hasn’t stopped the piling on against Mr. Mueller, particularly by Mr. Hannity. In a March 20 broadcast, he said, “Robert Mueller was the U.S. attorney in charge while these men were rotting in prison while certain agents in the F.B.I. under Mueller covered up the truth.” www.nytimes.comI added some emphasis to the above. Mueller almost certainly had nothing to do with those people being kept in jail. That is some interesting information I hadn't seen. Though Hannity and such were saying more than I am. Perhaps he wasn't as personally involved as reported in the globe, though I didn't read anything in there about accountability for anyone responsible at the FBI or the involved local and federal officials. She also left out from the article text (have to click the link) a pretty important part of the statement she got regarding the person who said they saw the letters Mueller and his colleagues allegedly wrote. Curious timing on that piece though nonetheless. I did speak to Michael Albano, who served on the Massachusetts parole board for more than a decade, and he swore that he had seen the letter in the parole file in 2001. When he later went back to the file, the letter was not there.
That would explain why judge Gertner did not see the letter, if it existed. Albano, a liberal Democrat who
served as mayor of Springfield, is prepared to submit an affidavit or take a polygraph test swearing to the
existence of that letter, along with the letters of other Boston prosecutors, urging denial of parole Of course my critique of Mueller's super human integrity goes beyond this specific thing where the FBI he went on to run framed some guys and watched them rot in prison. FYI, I would take Michael J. Albano’s word with a grain of salt. His time as mayor of Springfield ended in receivership. And the parole department in MA does not have a stellar track record for that era either. Especially in the trash fire that is Springfield.
I mean listening to practically any public official outside of park rangers could clot your blood with the salt you need to take with it, but do either of those other things have anything to do with what he said?
Are you standing up for Mueller's integrity, or merely noting some events loosely connecting the person impugning it and his position to negative things (you didn't link)?
|
On May 02 2018 11:36 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +Ex-doctor says Trump dictated letter claiming he would be 'healthiest' president ever
President Trump's former personal physician claims that Trump dictated the 2015 letter he wrote praising the then-presidential candidate’s health.
"He dictated that whole letter. I didn't write that letter," Dr. Harold Bornstein told CNN. "I just made it up as I went along."
"His physical strength and stamina are extraordinary,” read the letter, which Bornstein had initially said he wrote himself. “If elected, Mr. Trump, I can state unequivocally, will be the healthiest individual ever elected to the presidency."
Bornstein now says that Trump had dictated the language as the doctor and his wife drove across Central Park.
“[Trump] dictated the letter and I would tell him what he couldn't put in there," he said. "They came to pick up their letter at 4 o'clock or something."
"That's black humor, that letter. That's my sense of humor," Bornstein added. "It's like the movie 'Fargo': It takes the truth and moves it in a different direction."
Trump had touted the letter ahead of its release on Twitter, saying it would "show perfection."
In September of 2016, Bornstein had defended the letter's effusive tone as a result of a rush he had been in at the time while seeing other patients.
The White House didn't respond to CNN's request for comment.
The new revelation comes hours after Bornstein told NBC News that Trump associates had raided his office in February 2017, seizing medical records on Trump.
“They must have been here for 25 minutes or 30 minutes. It created a lot of chaos,” the doctor said, adding that he felt “raped, frightened and sad.”
The White House pushed back against the account on Tuesday, saying that it was not a "raid" and that it was “standard operating procedure” for the White House medical unit to obtain a newly elected president’s medical records. http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/385765-trumps-ex-doctor-says-trump-dictated-letter-claiming-he-would-be Well, we all knew that that perfect bill of health was nonsense, but I didn't expect it to be so clearly dictated by Trump.
That's fucking amazing. I specifically remember when that letter came out, many people jokingly saying that it sounded as if trump himself wrote it, because no doctor would sound that stupid in writing. I guess we weren't wrong lol.
|
On May 02 2018 12:21 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2018 12:06 Plansix wrote:On May 02 2018 11:03 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 02 2018 10:38 Kyadytim wrote:On May 02 2018 06:47 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 02 2018 06:45 On_Slaught wrote:
How the final report is written/what is in it should tell us a lot about how thorough the investigation was. I'm confident it will be comprehensive, but only time will tell.
Regarding his character, I've seen significantly more positive than negative. That and he has surrounded himself with consummate proffesionsals by all indications.
Bruh, he fought to keep 4 people he knew were innocent (two of which died in prison btw) from getting clemency for a crime the FBI framed them for. Takes a lot of 'positive' to outweigh that for me. Especially without a mea culpa. I'm no lawyer, but it's hard for me to imagine something much worse than that to do if 'justice' is anything more than a mask for someone. EDIT: Bonus points for this being the person with the most integrity/competence they could find in the entire country to do this job in the first place (hint: he was just the most politically acceptable) Was Robert Mueller, the special counsel, complicit in one of the worst scandals in the F.B.I.’s history — the decades-long wrongful imprisonment of four men for a murder they didn’t commit?
This question, which has been raised before, is being addressed again — this time by some of President Trump’s most ardent supporters on the right, especially Fox News’s Sean Hannity but also Rush Limbaugh and others. My friend Alan Dershowitz, the retired Harvard Law School professor, has also weighed in.
In an April 8 interview with John Catsimatidis on his New York radio show, Mr. Dershowitz asserted that Mr. Mueller was “the guy who kept four innocent people in prison for many years in order to protect the cover of Whitey Bulger as an F.B.I. informer.” Mr. Mueller, he said, was “right at the center of it.” Mr. Bulger was a notorious crime boss in Boston, the head of the Winter Hill Gang, and also a secret source for the F.B.I.
There is no evidence that the assertion is true. I was the federal judge who presided over a successful lawsuit brought against the government by two of those men and the families of the other two, who had died in prison. Based on the voluminous evidence submitted in the trial, and having written a 105-page decision awarding them $101.8 million, I can say without equivocation that Mr. Mueller, who worked in the United States attorney’s office in Boston from 1982 to 1988, including a brief stint as the acting head of the office, had no involvement in that case. He was never even mentioned.
The case wasn’t about Whitey Bulger but another mobster the F.B.I. was also protecting, the hit man Joseph Barboza, who lied when he testified that the four men had killed Edward Deegan, a low-level mobster, in 1965. Mr. Barboza was covering for the real killers, and the F.B.I. went along because of his importance as an informant.
But the evidence — or rather, lack of it — hasn’t stopped the piling on against Mr. Mueller, particularly by Mr. Hannity. In a March 20 broadcast, he said, “Robert Mueller was the U.S. attorney in charge while these men were rotting in prison while certain agents in the F.B.I. under Mueller covered up the truth.” www.nytimes.comI added some emphasis to the above. Mueller almost certainly had nothing to do with those people being kept in jail. That is some interesting information I hadn't seen. Though Hannity and such were saying more than I am. Perhaps he wasn't as personally involved as reported in the globe, though I didn't read anything in there about accountability for anyone responsible at the FBI or the involved local and federal officials. She also left out from the article text (have to click the link) a pretty important part of the statement she got regarding the person who said they saw the letters Mueller and his colleagues allegedly wrote. Curious timing on that piece though nonetheless. I did speak to Michael Albano, who served on the Massachusetts parole board for more than a decade, and he swore that he had seen the letter in the parole file in 2001. When he later went back to the file, the letter was not there.
That would explain why judge Gertner did not see the letter, if it existed. Albano, a liberal Democrat who
served as mayor of Springfield, is prepared to submit an affidavit or take a polygraph test swearing to the
existence of that letter, along with the letters of other Boston prosecutors, urging denial of parole Of course my critique of Mueller's super human integrity goes beyond this specific thing where the FBI he went on to run framed some guys and watched them rot in prison. FYI, I would take Michael J. Albano’s word with a grain of salt. His time as mayor of Springfield ended in receivership. And the parole department in MA does not have a stellar track record for that era either. Especially in the trash fire that is Springfield. I mean listening to practically any public official outside of park rangers could clot your blood with the salt you need to take with it, but do either of those other things have anything to do with what he said? Are you standing up for Mueller's integrity, or merely noting some events loosely connecting the person impugning it and his position to negative things (you didn't link)?
I’ll find the article. It’s from 2005ish and a lot of the links Im finding are dead. I’m just from that area he ran that city into the ground and a good chunk of his cabinet was brought with corruption. He is pretty significantly below the average politician and most people from the area have knee jerk “fuck that sentient jar of mayonnaise” response every time he makes headlines.
|
On May 02 2018 12:31 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2018 12:21 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 02 2018 12:06 Plansix wrote:On May 02 2018 11:03 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 02 2018 10:38 Kyadytim wrote:On May 02 2018 06:47 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 02 2018 06:45 On_Slaught wrote:
How the final report is written/what is in it should tell us a lot about how thorough the investigation was. I'm confident it will be comprehensive, but only time will tell.
Regarding his character, I've seen significantly more positive than negative. That and he has surrounded himself with consummate proffesionsals by all indications.
Bruh, he fought to keep 4 people he knew were innocent (two of which died in prison btw) from getting clemency for a crime the FBI framed them for. Takes a lot of 'positive' to outweigh that for me. Especially without a mea culpa. I'm no lawyer, but it's hard for me to imagine something much worse than that to do if 'justice' is anything more than a mask for someone. EDIT: Bonus points for this being the person with the most integrity/competence they could find in the entire country to do this job in the first place (hint: he was just the most politically acceptable) Was Robert Mueller, the special counsel, complicit in one of the worst scandals in the F.B.I.’s history — the decades-long wrongful imprisonment of four men for a murder they didn’t commit?
This question, which has been raised before, is being addressed again — this time by some of President Trump’s most ardent supporters on the right, especially Fox News’s Sean Hannity but also Rush Limbaugh and others. My friend Alan Dershowitz, the retired Harvard Law School professor, has also weighed in.
In an April 8 interview with John Catsimatidis on his New York radio show, Mr. Dershowitz asserted that Mr. Mueller was “the guy who kept four innocent people in prison for many years in order to protect the cover of Whitey Bulger as an F.B.I. informer.” Mr. Mueller, he said, was “right at the center of it.” Mr. Bulger was a notorious crime boss in Boston, the head of the Winter Hill Gang, and also a secret source for the F.B.I.
There is no evidence that the assertion is true. I was the federal judge who presided over a successful lawsuit brought against the government by two of those men and the families of the other two, who had died in prison. Based on the voluminous evidence submitted in the trial, and having written a 105-page decision awarding them $101.8 million, I can say without equivocation that Mr. Mueller, who worked in the United States attorney’s office in Boston from 1982 to 1988, including a brief stint as the acting head of the office, had no involvement in that case. He was never even mentioned.
The case wasn’t about Whitey Bulger but another mobster the F.B.I. was also protecting, the hit man Joseph Barboza, who lied when he testified that the four men had killed Edward Deegan, a low-level mobster, in 1965. Mr. Barboza was covering for the real killers, and the F.B.I. went along because of his importance as an informant.
But the evidence — or rather, lack of it — hasn’t stopped the piling on against Mr. Mueller, particularly by Mr. Hannity. In a March 20 broadcast, he said, “Robert Mueller was the U.S. attorney in charge while these men were rotting in prison while certain agents in the F.B.I. under Mueller covered up the truth.” www.nytimes.comI added some emphasis to the above. Mueller almost certainly had nothing to do with those people being kept in jail. That is some interesting information I hadn't seen. Though Hannity and such were saying more than I am. Perhaps he wasn't as personally involved as reported in the globe, though I didn't read anything in there about accountability for anyone responsible at the FBI or the involved local and federal officials. She also left out from the article text (have to click the link) a pretty important part of the statement she got regarding the person who said they saw the letters Mueller and his colleagues allegedly wrote. Curious timing on that piece though nonetheless. I did speak to Michael Albano, who served on the Massachusetts parole board for more than a decade, and he swore that he had seen the letter in the parole file in 2001. When he later went back to the file, the letter was not there.
That would explain why judge Gertner did not see the letter, if it existed. Albano, a liberal Democrat who
served as mayor of Springfield, is prepared to submit an affidavit or take a polygraph test swearing to the
existence of that letter, along with the letters of other Boston prosecutors, urging denial of parole Of course my critique of Mueller's super human integrity goes beyond this specific thing where the FBI he went on to run framed some guys and watched them rot in prison. FYI, I would take Michael J. Albano’s word with a grain of salt. His time as mayor of Springfield ended in receivership. And the parole department in MA does not have a stellar track record for that era either. Especially in the trash fire that is Springfield. I mean listening to practically any public official outside of park rangers could clot your blood with the salt you need to take with it, but do either of those other things have anything to do with what he said? Are you standing up for Mueller's integrity, or merely noting some events loosely connecting the person impugning it and his position to negative things (you didn't link)? I’ll find the article. It’s from 2005ish and a lot of the links Im finding are dead. I’m just from that area he ran that city into the ground and a good chunk of his cabinet was brought charged corruption. He is pretty significantly below the average politician and most people from the area have knee jerk “fuck that sentient jar of mayonnaise” response every time he makes headlines.
I mean, that whole area was pretty bad pretty much since this has been a country so it's not like I don't generally believe it, but I doubt he did it himself, I'd imagine like the FBI framing these guys and Mueller's alleged involvement, there's a lot of factors at play. It's hard to even call it corruption when it was more standard than not. Like the Blagojevich thing in Chicago. These places (Boston and tons of surrounding areas included) have been 'dirty' more than they've even faked being 'clean' and people usually go down for getting too greedy and disobeying their superiors.
My question really was about whether you were vouching for Mueller's integrity or if those things had any relevance to the discussion beyond being vaguely connected unsourced negative things to say about the person alleging he saw the letters to undermine his credibility.
Though I don't think any of that indicates what motive he would have to lie about that under oath?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
