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

So if one player on the Rockets does something wrong, it makes the entire team tainted? You obviously are reaching just to find a way to discredit the findings. C'mon man, stop being a tool

 

What exactly does lost credibility mean n this case?

Is the presumption that Mueller is manufacturing false evidence?

The investigation has already produced two plea deals, that in and of itself, already proves the investigation is credible.

This isn't a Benghazi.

 

No one? I'll help...
_____

The special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, removed a top F.B.I. agent this summer from his investigation into Russian election meddling after the Justice Department’s inspector general began examining whether the agent had sent text messages that expressed anti-Trump political views, according to three people briefed on the matter.

The agent, Peter Strzok, is considered one of the most experienced and trusted F.B.I. counterintelligence investigators.

But Mr. Strzok was reassigned this summer from Mr. Mueller’s investigation to the F.B.I.’s human resources department, where he has been stationed since.

“Immediately upon learning of the allegations, the special counsel’s office removed Peter Strzok from the investigation,” said a spokesman for the special counsel’s office, Peter Carr.

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/12/...app://com.google.android.googlequicksearchbox

 

The word "obvious" in your statement is an opinion, not fact based. As such, this taints your whole statement.

 

You're wrong, it's fact based. When a person is investigating the boss for firing one of their personal friends, that's an obvious conflict of interest. You can't argue that because it's simply a fact.

 

Again, a conflict of interest would only matter if Mueller ignored evidence and did not bring charges where they were appropriate.

Being so anti Trump that you investigate too hard is not a thing.

We already have guilty pleas. This pathetic attempt to discredit the investigation is laughable, but not unexpected.

 

A conflict of interest exists no matter what. The argument would be that the conflict of interest didn't affect him....but it's mere existence kills the credibility of the investigation. If he was ethical, he wouldn't have taken the job.

 

Lol tessie crumbling already

 

A conflict of interest doesn't kill anything.

If an oil company investigates climate change and finds that it's real, despite being biased, that doesn't invalidate their findings.

Stop being an idiot.

 

There's a difference between something like that that is private and legal proceedings.

 

Prosecutors think the defendants are scum all the time. Should all those cases be thrown out too?

 

Look at it this way. Robert Mueller fired someone over a comment. That's it. If that's the bar for him to think 'bias' you should be rationally confident that he doesn't want any bias at in the investigation.

An FBI agent thinks Trump is stupid. That's probably the case with most educated individuals who are in the FBI. OMG.

 

The idea that bias could ever be eliminated is comical. Only people who work in non-science based fields make such claims. Bias is ever present, but awareness and appreciation of it makes the difference.

 

Gee, and all this time I'd think you would want him to be impartial. But hey, I guess bigtexxx only supports partial sources and investigations...

 

The two plea deals, along with Manafort's charges, have NOTHING even remotely to do with collusion, which is supposed to be what the investigation is about. I think it's pretty safe to say the Russian collusion hope is a dry hole.

 

For Trump and his supporters who are against our Justice and Law Enforcement personnel... you should be ashamed...

 

My points stand exactly as they were stated. You'd have to be pretty naive to not know that as soon as the majority of us see a BT thread like this, it's "of course, it's going to be slanted. Either the title is going to be misleading (you've done that already multiple times this year alone), or it's going to be your typical "jump to conclusions" commentary, or it's going to be highly hypocritical, such as the "I'm going to b**** about Obama playing golf, but I'm not going to do the same about Trump b/c I'm going to create this BS narrative that whenever Obama did it, he could have been spending his time MUCH better and when Trump does it, there's nothing else he needed to be doing."

Seriously, nice try, but you're one of the worst posters on this board, if not #1, about being hypocritical and biased to an extreme degree. I and numerous liberal posters on this board have admitted to being wrong, have at least one time given Republicans credit (me on W. Bush's overall job performance), and we can generally be reasoned with, if even occasionally. Many conservative posters on here are the same- I've had reasonable discussions with BobbyTheGreat, Ipaman, and ATW in addition to the arguments. They have, even if one time, acknowledged the "other side" as I like to call it- because no President is 100% bad- not Nixon, not Obama, not Reagan, and not Clinton- and not even Trump. That is not the case with you. Prove otherwise, and I'll be the first to admit I'm wrong.

EX: Trump put out a tweet yesterday praising Rosa Parks. It was actually very good and I was the first to say on Twitter, "wow, shocking, an intelligent and good-hearted Tweet from Trump!" It's a shame that he can't understand he would be SO much more popular (which is what he wants more than anything) if he would be more like this.

So, until you show that you can act like a decent human being and be maybe 99.9% biased vs. 100%, maybe more of us would actually acknowledge what you say vs. immediately blowing it off as BigTexxx Being BigTexxx (and that's not a compliment, BTW).