|
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 |
I have difficulty believing GH even cares about Mueller's integrity, let alone has formed an educated-opinion on it.
Here's the bottom-line: If the Department of Justice condemns, indicts, or implicates Donald Trump in criminal or ethical wrong-doing, um, what the fuck were you expecting? That doesn't suggest the "system is broken". There's a LOT of things that do a better job of that. This would be an example of the opposite. Or at the very least, in plain realism: Donald Trump has always been very criminal, and his campaign had no compunction about dealing with Russia.
|
On May 02 2018 13:52 Leporello wrote:
I have difficulty believing GH even cares about Mueller's integrity, let alone has formed an educated-opinion on it.
Here's the bottom-line: If the Department of Justice condemns, indicts, or implicates Donald Trump in criminal or ethical wrong-doing, um, what the fuck were you expecting? That doesn't suggest the "system is broken". There's a LOT of things that do a better job of that. This would be an example of the opposite. Or at the very least, in plain realism: Donald Trump has always been very criminal, and his campaign had no compunction about dealing with Russia.
I don't know why you would doubt I actually question the integrity of anyone who ran the FBI or had half the stuff on their record that Mueller does. I mean the same FBI was definitely letting people rot in prison for crimes they didn't commit and best I can tell no one was held accountable. Which has basically always been the case with folks at the FBI. No one there seems to have a problem with that which makes me question the entire FBI as an organization. I could go on but I feel like I've been through the history of the messed up stuff they've done and how that crap in the 70's was ineffective and so on so I don't really want to dig back into that. I can link you back to it if you really want to cape for the FBI or Mueller or claim suspicion of my genuine skepticism of his integrity.
Not that you've demonstrated any understanding of it whatsoever.
What was I expecting, or what do I think a functioning system would have done/would do?
EDIT:+ Show Spoiler + Seriously, what's with this responding to my posts without quoting them and referring to me like I'm not here?
That's the third time from the third person today. Is that some trolling meme I'm unaware of or something?
|
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. Your parroting a line from Hannity and co?
Even if they go further then you the mere fact that they mention it should make you question the truthfulness of your position.
|
On May 02 2018 17:57 Gorsameth 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. Your parroting a line from Hannity and co? Even if they go further then you the mere fact that they mention it should make you question the truthfulness of your position.
I have a tendency to do the research myself rather than dismiss things because stupid people said something similar or believe something (like Mueller has an impeccable record of integrity) because a 'smart' person told me . Alex Jones says a LOT of absurdly stupid things, but sometimes he just mentions a news story, the news story doesn't become fake because he talked about it, even if he ends up talking about how everyone in it is a lizard person.
If you want to question either the allegation or my position, do it. Don't bother commenting if all your going to say is "but yeah Hannity said it too durrr"
|
On May 02 2018 18:02 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2018 17:57 Gorsameth 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. Your parroting a line from Hannity and co? Even if they go further then you the mere fact that they mention it should make you question the truthfulness of your position. I have a tendency to do the research myself rather than dismiss things because stupid people said something similar or believe something (like Mueller has an impeccable record of integrity) because a 'smart' person told me . Alex Jones says a LOT of absurdly stupid things, but sometimes he just mentions a news story, the news story doesn't become fake because he talked about it, even if he ends up talking about how everyone in it is a lizard person. If you want to question either the allegation or my position, do it. Don't bother commenting if all your going to say is "but yeah Hannity said it too durrr"
I dunno. If Alex Jones said the sun rises in the morning I'd be inclined to distrust my own lying eyes before believing him. Hannity is only a tiny step above that.
|
On May 02 2018 18:07 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2018 18:02 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 02 2018 17:57 Gorsameth 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. Your parroting a line from Hannity and co? Even if they go further then you the mere fact that they mention it should make you question the truthfulness of your position. I have a tendency to do the research myself rather than dismiss things because stupid people said something similar or believe something (like Mueller has an impeccable record of integrity) because a 'smart' person told me . Alex Jones says a LOT of absurdly stupid things, but sometimes he just mentions a news story, the news story doesn't become fake because he talked about it, even if he ends up talking about how everyone in it is a lizard person. If you want to question either the allegation or my position, do it. Don't bother commenting if all your going to say is "but yeah Hannity said it too durrr" I dunno. If Alex Jones said the sun rises in the morning I'd be inclined to distrust my own lying eyes before believing him. Hannity is only a tiny step above that.
Sure, question it, I guess? I mean you would sound like a blinded fool imo but fine (referring to whether the sun rises). Then look into it yourself, and bring comments based on that. Comments like the one I was pointing out are worthless.
|
On May 02 2018 18:10 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2018 18:07 Acrofales wrote:On May 02 2018 18:02 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 02 2018 17:57 Gorsameth 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. Your parroting a line from Hannity and co? Even if they go further then you the mere fact that they mention it should make you question the truthfulness of your position. I have a tendency to do the research myself rather than dismiss things because stupid people said something similar or believe something (like Mueller has an impeccable record of integrity) because a 'smart' person told me . Alex Jones says a LOT of absurdly stupid things, but sometimes he just mentions a news story, the news story doesn't become fake because he talked about it, even if he ends up talking about how everyone in it is a lizard person. If you want to question either the allegation or my position, do it. Don't bother commenting if all your going to say is "but yeah Hannity said it too durrr" I dunno. If Alex Jones said the sun rises in the morning I'd be inclined to distrust my own lying eyes before believing him. Hannity is only a tiny step above that. Sure, question it, I guess? I mean you would sound like a blinded fool imo but fine (referring to whether the sun rises). Then look into it yourself, and bring comments based on that. Comments like the one I was pointing out are worthless.
Clearly didn't get my point. But back on-topic. I can't actually find any reliable source for your claims about Mueller. Howie Starr apparently started it all, but he has no real evidence that Mueller even lobbied against leniency/parole, and if he did, that this was with knowledge that those 4 guys were innocent, or whether it is just a kind of standard thing attorneys do when murder convicts are up for parole.
http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-mueller-record-20171122-story.html
This story paints a pretty clear picture of Mueller as a not very likeable, by the books kinda guy, who has made mistakes but seems generally competent. And I get the impression the author doesn't like Mueller much, so isn't holding back.
|
There's a point of view that says that the system of law enforcement in the US is so corrupt that its impossible to get to the top of the FBI without approaching law enforcement from a corrupt angle, whilst also being further corrupted by the system.
If you go by this point of view, I can easily see why you would assume truth in an article like that Boston Globe one. Admittedly, it tells a good story, but I haven't seen anything that suggests that it is true, or anything more than a misrepresentation and exaggeration of the facts of the case.
The first thing I noticed when I saw that article was that it was badly written, which - pedantic as it may seem - immediately sets alarm bells ringing.
|
On May 02 2018 19:00 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2018 18:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 02 2018 18:07 Acrofales wrote:On May 02 2018 18:02 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 02 2018 17:57 Gorsameth 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. Your parroting a line from Hannity and co? Even if they go further then you the mere fact that they mention it should make you question the truthfulness of your position. I have a tendency to do the research myself rather than dismiss things because stupid people said something similar or believe something (like Mueller has an impeccable record of integrity) because a 'smart' person told me . Alex Jones says a LOT of absurdly stupid things, but sometimes he just mentions a news story, the news story doesn't become fake because he talked about it, even if he ends up talking about how everyone in it is a lizard person. If you want to question either the allegation or my position, do it. Don't bother commenting if all your going to say is "but yeah Hannity said it too durrr" I dunno. If Alex Jones said the sun rises in the morning I'd be inclined to distrust my own lying eyes before believing him. Hannity is only a tiny step above that. Sure, question it, I guess? I mean you would sound like a blinded fool imo but fine (referring to whether the sun rises). Then look into it yourself, and bring comments based on that. Comments like the one I was pointing out are worthless. Clearly didn't get my point. But back on-topic. I can't actually find any reliable source for your claims about Mueller. Howie Starr apparently started it all, but he has no real evidence that Mueller even lobbied against leniency/parole, and if he did, that this was with knowledge that those 4 guys were innocent, or whether it is just a kind of standard thing attorneys do when murder convicts are up for parole. http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-mueller-record-20171122-story.htmlThis story paints a pretty clear picture of Mueller as a not very likeable, by the books kinda guy, who has made mistakes but seems generally competent. And I get the impression the author doesn't like Mueller much, so isn't holding back.
I mean it glossed over the extrajudicial stuff the FBI was doing, particularly in Muslim communities after 9/11 for one but they pretty much all do.
I'm not especially attached to the specific allegations about the letters, people are right that the letters never turned up and all we have is some guy who worked there saying he saw them and willing to take a lie detector and swear under oath (which would be 'real evidence'). Maybe he's making it up for no apparent reason, maybe not.
If your argument is Mueller is a man of integrity (not something you actually said) I disagree. If you're saying the story is questionable because the letters didn't turn up (and that maybe he didn't know) then I'd say I'd expect some reason for the guy to lie, but like I said, that's only one of several reasons I question his integrity.
But as Jock mentioned (I think sarcastically), I also don't think you can rise to the top of an agency known to assassinate US citizens, let them rot in prison for crimes they didn't commit, spy illegally on US citizens, etc...and never held accountable, being a model of integrity.
Someone like that doesn't sound like they would fit in very well.
|
I wasn't being sarcastic GH, I am pretty much of the same opinion, but probably with a little more leeway than you. To me, its possible to rise to the top without being corrupt or corrupted along the way, but its unlikely.
|
There is also a diffrence between being a bit "sleezy/not 100% ethical" and being an absolutely awefull human being corrupted to the core.
|
On May 02 2018 12:48 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2018 12:31 Plansix wrote: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?
Here is his most recent dive into politics again:
Former Springfield Mayor Michael Albano announces candidacy for Hampden County Sheriff
SPRINGFIELD — Ending months of speculation, Governor's Councilor and former Springfield Mayor Michael Albano announced on Friday that he will run for sheriff of Hampden County.
In an interview on State Rep. Ben Swan's weekly radio show on WTCC, 90.7 FM, Albano said he chose to make the announcement on a public radio station as a snub to the "mainstream media" and its corporate bosses. It was the mainstream media, after all, that scrutinized Albano's stewardship of Springfield, which was mired in corruption and teetering on the brink of bankruptcy when the four-term mayor left office.
"In accepting this challenge, I believe my background and experience is well-suited for this important position. From my days as a probation officer, to my service to three governors as a member of the Parole Board, to mayor, to Governor's Councillor – there is no one with the level and depth of experience I hold to be the next sheriff," Albano, a Longmeadow Democrat, said in a statement.
The announcement comes on the heels of the launch of a website called "Stop Mike Albano," which highlights the lowlights of a political career that included a federal corruption probe during his tenure as mayor and a state takeover of Springfield's finances after he left office in 2004. A state-imposed panel with sweeping powers assumed control of the city's financial and personnel decisions to help clean up a $41 million budget deficit.
When a caller to the radio show asked about the federal investigation that led to criminal convictions for some of Albano's closest associates, including his chief of staff, the politician defended his record. "We had some issues with the FBI and some of it was retaliatory toward me ... But I take responsibility for the actions of some of the individuals in my administration, and I always have," Albano said. "But by any objective standard, my administration was a successful one."
In an interview after leaving the radio station, Albano sounded upbeat and confident, saying he's ready for a good fight. "I'll match my qualifications with anyone who's going to run," he said, citing his lengthy public safety resume, which includes stints as a probation officer and a member of the state Parole Board. Albano noted that he also oversaw the Springfield Police Department, one of the largest police forces in Massachusetts.
Albano said the "nature of (his) resume" – a blend of political, law enforcement and judicial expertise – gives him an edge over his opponents in the sheriff's race, all of whom are veterans of the corrections industry.
In September, Albano will face fellow Democrats Nick Cocchi and Jack Griffin in a three-way primary for the party's nomination. James Gill, a former Democrat who's running as an independent, is also in the sheriff's race. Gill and Cocchi are both ranking officers at the Hampden County Sheriff's Department, while Griffin is retired from the Connecticut Department of Correction.
When longtime Sheriff Michael Ashe announced he would not seek re-election, it sparked the first sheriff's contest in more than 40 years. Other candidates could still enter the race, which won't be decided until November.
Meanwhile, the Stop Mike Albano website features multiple articles about his management of Springfield, including the corruption probe and financial crisis, but no specific commentary beyond the catchphrase "Hampden County Deserves Better." There's an email address to contact the blog, but no mention of who created the site.
Albano said he isn't fazed by the website.
"My father always said to me: 'Michael, if they stop writing about you, your'e probably dead.' And Michael Albano is not dead – politically or otherwise," said the man who wants to be sheriff.
Source
He has a long history with the FBI due to the corruption probes that lead most of his buddies to be charged with crimes and being removed from office. Which is why I brought it up, because he always asserted that the FBI investigation was politically motivated for reasons most folks can't really figure out. He is the Ever-Candidate, shamelessly running for office again after being removed by the state.
Again, I am not trying to defend Mueller or the case in question. I am saying that Michael Albano is a shady, attention seeking clown that would have no problem lying under oath if he thought it would make the FBI look a little bad.
|
On May 02 2018 21:50 Jockmcplop wrote:
I wasn't being sarcastic GH, I am pretty much of the same opinion, but probably with a little more leeway than you. To me, its possible to rise to the top without being corrupt or corrupted along the way, but its unlikely.
I mean, I don't see how it works, how could they trust someone to lead them that would snitch on them, and how could you lead the FBI with integrity without snitching on them and putting them in prison? I guess if you were just miraculously ignorant?
After all those posts about the particulars of the whole FBI leaving people to rot in prison for a crime they didn't commit and whether Mueller had a role, I'm not really sure if any of the people taking issue with it are saying they think Mueller is a person of exemplary integrity or not.
EDIT: I'm leaning toward not at the moment, but maybe I'm misreading some folks?
|
I can’t speak for other folks, but I agree it is a black spot on his record and something he should not have defended. But that does not negatively impact my opinion of his ability to conduct an politically impartial investigation into an elected official. If the investigation suddenly included three black men accused of murder as well, my opinion of the investigation would change.
|
On May 02 2018 23:05 Plansix wrote:
I can’t speak for other folks, but I agree it is a black spot on his record and something he should not have defended. But that does not negatively impact my opinion of his ability to conduct an politically impartial investigation into an elected official. If the investigation suddenly included three black men accused of murder as well, my opinion of the investigation would change.
Doesn't feel like a direct answer to the question but more of a
"his integrity is good enough to conduct the investigation to my satisfaction and I have no comment on all the media and senate that made him sound like he had impeccable integrity"
to paraphrase.
|
I don't care if Mueller once stole a lollipop from a child or whether he leaves the toilet seat up.
I expect him to do his job and do it professionally and thoroughly.
Any attempt to discredit him and the investigation would need to come with actual proof, not hearsay.
All the fake outcries and smearing attempted by Trump and associates just makes me require a higher burden of proof to take anyone else who joins in seriously.
|
On May 02 2018 23:20 Gorsameth wrote:
I don't care if Mueller once stole a lollipop from a child or whether he leaves the toilet seat up.
I expect him to do his job and do it professionally and thoroughly.
Any attempt to discredit him and the investigation would need to come with actual proof, not hearsay.
All the fake outcries and smearing attempted by Trump and associates just makes me require a higher burden of proof to take anyone else who joins in seriously.
I think the point is that if he conducts himself in a manner that benefits the FBI materially over the abstract idea of justice then he can't be trusted to run any investigation impartially.
It may appear impartial, but the FBI's interests will always be put ahead of justice/the public.
We all know that this isn't how the law works in America anyway. Its all about telling a compelling story to get your required result - provided it can be somewhat justified by evidence - rather than getting to the truth of things. In that way, his impartiality depends on what the motivations are for the investigation.
In terms of whether I personally trust him, I don't have any evidence or know his history well enough to say yes, and the fact that he is in a political position immediately makes me think no, but the proper answer is 'I have no idea'.
|
On May 02 2018 23:08 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2018 23:05 Plansix wrote:
I can’t speak for other folks, but I agree it is a black spot on his record and something he should not have defended. But that does not negatively impact my opinion of his ability to conduct an politically impartial investigation into an elected official. If the investigation suddenly included three black men accused of murder as well, my opinion of the investigation would change. Doesn't feel like a direct answer to the question but more of a "his integrity is good enough to conduct the investigation to my satisfaction and I have no comment on all the media and senate that made him sound like he had impeccable integrity" to paraphrase.
In context, the comments by the Senate are a response to Trump’s efforts to discredit the investigation. It is PR to protect the public’s view of the investigation.
|
Philadelphia (AP) -- Two black men arrested for sitting at a Philadelphia Starbucks without ordering anything settled with the city for a symbolic $1 each Wednesday and a promise from officials to set up a $200,000 program for young entrepreneurs.
The men's lawyer and Mayor Jim Kenney outlined the agreement to The Associated Press.
The arrest of Rashon Nelson and Donte Robinson on April 12 touched off a furor around the U.S. over racial profiling.
They were led away in handcuffs after the manager called police, saying the men refused to buy anything or leave. After spending hours in jail, they were released and no charges were filed.
The men said they were waiting for a business meeting about a potential real estate deal.
Starbucks CEO Kevin Johnson came to Philadelphia to personally apologize. He also announced Starbucks stores would close May 29 for training on bias.
Source
The Starbucks saga ends in choice fashion. The two black gentlemen decided to make a public statement with their settlement and undercut any criticism. Although not strictly worth a lot of discussion, it is some nice news in what appears to be a pretty Trump filled news week.
|
That starbucks thing was an interesting exemplar of the effects profiling can have in the enforcement of otherwise reasonable standards, and the issues that occur around how to address that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
