[Bias and lost credibility] Mueller team and Clinton email investigation had Trump hater in key role

Kudos to Mueller. He gets a bunch of hate but I haven't had a problem with his investigation.

 

Good luck with that.

 

Came to say this, I love how many of the Trump guys here always end up with involuntary irony. There should be auto—formatting in front of every BigTexxx, RL, Bobby etc post/thread that says [Bias and Lost credibility].

 

He's very smart in that he aligns himself with one of the most respected members on this board and a highly intelligent person to boot.

In BigTexxx speak, that would be, "He's right, son/kid/pappy/whateverotherstupidadjectiveBigTexxxcomesupwith.

The funniest thing is the avatar. If he changed it to "Most Ridiculed Poster on ClutchFans," he'd be hitting the nail on the head.

 

If was obvious then why isn't there a conviction or at least some formal charges?

 

Charges for what? A conflict of interest? Conflicts of interest aren't inherently illegal, it's an issue of ethics.

 

You mean the findings created by the tainted investigation?

 

Tainted...? LOL

 

And that's exactly the problem....and it's the reason why people would opt for a truly independent investigator to begin with. When you have someone that has an obvious conflict of interest investigating something it causes the appearance of impropriety and you simply can't have that. That's the reason why an ethical investigator would recuse themselves if put in the position Mueller was put in......and it makes it that much worse that he refused to do so.

I mean, since there is the conflict of interest causing an appearance of impropriety AND he decided to go with it rather than refuse the job or recuse himself once the conflict of interest was pointed out it suggests that on top of being compromised he's also unethical.

They really should have picked someone without direct personal ties to those involved.

 

Lol......that’s a joke rightt?

 

I mean we all knew how partial Trey Gowdy and the GOP were during Benghazi....

Hey what happened to the Uranium deal?

Lol at the GOPers on here.... sad!

 

If you're talking about an audit, like a financial one, where the investigator is also the one who decides if wrongdoing has been done, then you are perfectly correct. This is not like that. The investigator isn't the one who decides guilt or innocence. The investigator is solely in charge of building a case. If the case is strong enough, he/she pursues charges and puts it before a judge, jury and executioners. If it isn't strong enough, he/she abandons it. Again, every prosecutor believes almost every case he/she has tried the defendant is guilty. That's bias. He/she often decides this guilt early on in the investigation. Again, bias. This is why he/she doesn't decide innocence or sentence. According to your logical, every crime in America should be thrown out due to bias. Again, the personal issue you speak of is also bias as well. Comey being linked to Mueller is bias in every way. But does that mean a prosecutor who has family members who were raped, or may have been a victim of rape cannot pursue a rape case? An officer who has been burgled cannot investigate burglaries? No. Bias is ever present, but, if the case you're making is that this bias has led to malicious prosecution, then the Donald can counter-sue and get his day in court. So far, I'm not seeing that. Being biased is fine, heck, 90% of all scientific studies are carried under a bias, but if that bias leads to data mismanagement, lies, or manipulation that's where we have an issue. Again, I have yet to see that as an issue thus far.

 

When the person putting together an investigation has an inherent conflict of interest that is personal in nature, they should not proceed with the investigation, they should pass it off to someone else because their personal ties to the investigation cause the appearance of impropriety.....and avoiding the appearance of impropriety is the whole point to appointing an independent investigator in the first place.

I feel like your opinion on this would be completely different if the investigator was a personal friend of Trump's....funny how that is.

 

You mean the Benghazi investigation held mostly in front of the public with witnesses interviewed by members of both parties?

vs.

The completely unaccountable "special counsel" investigation being made by the guy who's friends with the dude Trump fired. The man who hired people already shown to have people privately hostile to the President involved with the investigation. Nice false equivalency.

Meanwhile, if you're truly worried about Uranium 1, never fear.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/13/us/politics/justice-department-uranium-one-special-counsel.html

 

If a Trump friend had an excellent record of prosecution and worked to put away a number of high profile cases I would be on board. Also, not the same type of bias. You are using a logical fallacy of equivocation here a bit. The purpose of the investigator is to put forth the best case. A bias where the person wrong is linked doesn't necessarily hinder putting forth the best case, as much as having a relationship with the defendant would. Again, I ask you, if a prosecutor was raped should he/she not try rape cases? How about burgled? How about assaulted? Again, because the presumption of guilt or innocence is made by someone independent of the two parties at hand a lot of bias should not weigh into the decision. The issue is, if a friend of Trump's was building the case, his personal bias of supporting Trump could be at odds with his goal of putting forth the best investigation possible. However, an enemy's goal and bias align perfectly. Hence why that bias isn't the same. Now if you asked me if I care which way Mueller votes, democrat or republican I don't. That sort of bias is minimal.

Some of the best prosecutors in the country are ones experienced hard ship, and use that hurt and anger to keep a laser like focus to put criminals away.

 

Which was a very public waste of time. Nothing you said goes against Gowdy/GOP being impartial. Seems the Dems were fine with the outcome but not the GOP...

The Special Counsel appointed by the GOP, who at the time, was proclaimed to be a man of honor?

What happened? Now that the folks Trump hired are getting arrested you want to toss it out the findings out? Seems very fishy....

Looks like you are a new cycles behind.... something happened with that that made some in the GOP question Mueller’s integrity...

Keep throwing **** against... it may eventually stick.

 

Only a partisan would claim an investigation into the deaths of 4 americans including an ambassador would be a "waste of time".

Mueller was appointed by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, not the "GOP". Rosenstein has served both GOP and Dem administrations.

Link?

Well, for starters you have at least 1 attorney who Mueller brought on to investigate Trump who has since been shown to be VERY anti-Trump. It does seem very fishy indeed.

WTF are you talking about? The NYT article I posted is referring to Sessions and Rosenstein overseeing the potential for a new Special Counsel to investigate Uranium 1.

 

What about 8 investigations spanning over 4 years?