[quote=""praxis""]I am not a Trump supporter[/quote]
98% of your posts to the contrary, Cop didn’t say you were.
You all keep going back to the argument that Mueller and company are Republicans
No one is “going back to” anything. It’s called “counter-argumentation.” You should look it up some time.
As Cop pointed out, the argument being presented by the Trump occupation is that the Russian investigations are all “hoaxes” and “witch hunts” being driven entirely by a Democrat/partisan bias in every one of our intelligence branches.
The obvious and most direct counter-argument
to such sophistry—beside the fact that no alleged bias has been proved to have influenced anything in any way, which is the only salient question in regard to any such accusations—is that Mueller is a Republican; Rosenstein (the one who appointed Mueller) is not just a Republican, but also a Trump appointee; the unprecedented and highly misleading Comey (former Republican) announcement regarding a re-opening of the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s emails is considered one of the primary factors in Hillary not being President; and, most importantly, the now infamous Steele Dossier was initiated by Republicans.
Iow, if simply saying “Democrat” is sufficient to insinuate not just bias, but acting
on that bias to commit felony fraud, then so too must pointing out “Republican” have the same effect. They don’t get to have it both ways, but that, of course, isn’t stopping them because the goal is to turn the word “Democrat” into a slur through false equivalancies and not to uncover any fundamental truths.
Thus by simply stating, “This person is a Democrat” the hope and intent is to equate that with “This person will commit felony fraud for no other reason than their partisan politics.”
From a former FBI agent and whistleblower:
Setting aside for the moment the merits of the Russiagate narrative, who really is this Robert Mueller that amnesiac liberals clamor to hold up as the champion of the people and defender of democracy?
Co-author Coleen Rowley, who as an FBI whistleblower exposed numerous internal problems at the FBI in the early 2000s, didn’t have to be privy to his inner circle to recall just a few of his actions after 9/11 that so shocked the public conscience as to repeatedly generate moral disapproval even on the part of mainstream media. Rowley was only able to scratch the surface in listing some of the more widely reported wrongdoing that should still shock liberal consciences.
That’s funny, considering that it was her memo to
Mueller that in turn led Mueller to initiate what turned into a two year investigation/overhaul
of the DOJ.
Here is a relevant
snippet from her 20/20 hindsight memo:
I know that my comments appear so presumptuous for a person of my rank in the organization and I'm very sorry for that impression. A word of explanation is therefore probably in order as to why I feel moved to write you directly about these issues. A good part of the reason lies in a promise I made to myself after I realized the enormity of what resulted when FBI Headquarters Supervisory personnel dismissed the warnings of Minneapolis agents pre-September 11, 2001. I was well aware of the forceful but frustrated efforts being made by Minneapolis case agents and their supervisor in their efforts to get Headquarters to move. But since my own role was peripheral, I did not think I could be of much additional help. Since that fateful day of September 11, 2001, however, I have not ceased to regret that perhaps I did not do all that I might have done.
I promised myself that in the future I would always try.
I appreciate that you alone do not determine policy on the terrorist threat from inside or outside the countrythat, indeed, you may have little influence in the crafting of broad domestic or foreign policy. And it seems clear to me now that the decision to attack Iraq was taken some time ago and you, even as FBI Director, may be little more than a helpless bystander.
Such an attack, though, may have grave consequences for your ability to discharge your responsibility to protect Americans, and it is altogether likely that you will find yourself a helpless bystander to a rash of 9-11s. The bottom line is this: We should be deluding neither ourselves nor the American people that there is any way the FBI, despite the various improvements you are implementing, will be able to stem the flood of terrorism that will likely head our way in the wake of an attack on Iraq. What troubles me most is that I have no assurance that you have made that clear to the president.
If you believe my concerns have merit, I would ask you to share them with the president and attorney general.
And then this is from Time magazine
who first published leaked portions of the memo:
FBI director Mueller isn't denying Rowley's charges. He said Thursday night he has asked Justice Department Inspector General Glen Fine to investigate her claims. "While I cannot comment on the specifics of the letter, I am convinced that a different approach is required," Mueller said. "New strategies, new technologies, new analytical capacities and a different culture make us an agency that is changing post 9/11. There is no room for the types of problems and attitudes that could inhibit our efforts."
Iow, she made her personal concerns about 9/11 known—and conceded that Mueller had little to do with any policy decisions in regard to her other accusations on Iraq tie-ins—and Mueller acted upon those concerns
Although Mueller and his “joined at the hip” cohort James Comey are now hailed for their impeccable character
as top law enforcement officials of the George W. Bush administration (Mueller as FBI Director and Comey as Deputy Attorney General), both presided over post-9/11 cover-ups and secret abuses of the Constitution, enabled Bush-Cheney fabrications used to launch wrongful wars, and exhibited stunning levels of incompetence.
Assertions all, but even if they were all fully supported, so what? It’s a strawman to begin with and has no bearing on how Mueller is conducting his investigation.
Worse, it’s full of omissions and speculations that ironically fall victim to the same allegation being lobbed at Mueller (emphasis mine):
Steele was declared to be a “reliable source” without apparently vetting or corroborating any of the “opposition research” allegations that he had been hired (and paid $160,000) to quickly produce for the DNC and Hillary Clinton’s campaign.
Apparently, of course, being the operative term and the omission of the fact that Republicans were the first
to engage Steele the fatal flaw in the entire line of reasoning Cowley and her co-author ironically miss.
She is of course entitled to her personal opinions about Mueller and/or Comey, but such opinions have little bearing on whether or not Mueller is capable of conducting a thorough, non-partisan investigation and are seriously discredited by her reliance on strawmen, admitted speculation and ironic omissions of material information that contradict her and her co-author’s conclusion.