• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

An Appearance of Impropriety

So we can wait for the IG report to see if Whitaker’s comments affect his work. Perfect.

Then again this wasn’t about whether an IG report concluded an obvious bias affected work or not. Its about the APPEARANCE of impropriety.
 
Grokmaster said:
Which two pf three have been discredited, and what about them has been "discredited"?

I countered your post with some REALITY and your apparent hypocrisy.
Click to expand...

The IRS "scandal" and uranium one.

No "there" there.

Fast and furious was a ****up as far as I know.
 
It’s possible that Whitaker was brought in specifically to end the Mueller investigation and then will be replaced. Even McConnell seemed to acknowledge that when he said “I think this will be an interim, a very interim, AG (attorney general). I expect we'll get a new nominee very quickly on the job."
 
Winston said:
Whitaker has said he would decrease Mueller's budget if he were AG, in order to "grind Mueller's investigation to a halt".

He also said, that Sessions recused, not because he had anything to "hide" but, Sessions recused because of an "appearance of Impropriety".

Which apparently is part of the legal lexicon, for when a judge should recuse himself.

So, Whitaker certainly has an appearance of impropriety concerning the Mueller investigation. Should he recuse?

In the sane and rational universe, Whitaker should recuse. How can Whitaker oversee an investigation impartially, when we have video evidence of him admitting his preconceived notions that he holds.

Maybe the evidence Mueller has uncovered will turn him, but, my thinking, is that Trump would not of picked anyone not 100% loyal to him rather than the country or, the law.

So, I don't expect Whitaker to recuse himself. Trump fired Sessions because he recused himself. So, Whitaker would have to be a genius level troll in order to make it into that spot, only to recuse himself. It's much more likely that Whitaker is in fact, a total sellout for power and an obsequious lapdog.
Click to expand...

What if Whiitaker was gung ho on the investigation-- big supporter of Mueller; give him more money kind of guy?
Would he have to also recuse himself for impartiality?
 
Athanasius68 said:
What if Whiitaker was gung ho on the investigation-- big supporter of Mueller; give him more money kind of guy?
Would he have to also recuse himself for impartiality?
Click to expand...

If Whitaker had identified a predisposition in the case or had an obvious conflict of interest before taking the office...yes he would have to recuse himself. If he had not, NO he would not have to recuse himself.
 
Athanasius68 said:
What if Whiitaker was gung ho on the investigation-- big supporter of Mueller; give him more money kind of guy?
Would he have to also recuse himself for impartiality?
Click to expand...

No.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Winston said:
Whitaker has said he would decrease Mueller's budget if he were AG, in order to "grind Mueller's investigation to a halt".

He also said, that Sessions recused, not because he had anything to "hide" but, Sessions recused because of an "appearance of Impropriety".

Which apparently is part of the legal lexicon, for when a judge should recuse himself.

So, Whitaker certainly has an appearance of impropriety concerning the Mueller investigation. Should he recuse?

In the sane and rational universe, Whitaker should recuse. How can Whitaker oversee an investigation impartially, when we have video evidence of him admitting his preconceived notions that he holds.

Maybe the evidence Mueller has uncovered will turn him, but, my thinking, is that Trump would not of picked anyone not 100% loyal to him rather than the country or, the law.

So, I don't expect Whitaker to recuse himself. Trump fired Sessions because he recused himself. So, Whitaker would have to be a genius level troll in order to make it into that spot, only to recuse himself. It's much more likely that Whitaker is in fact, a total sellout for power and an obsequious lapdog.
Click to expand...

That's the best you've got, an APPEARANCE? How about this for an appearance of impropriety? https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...da-senate-governor-races-recounts/1943065002/
 
Winston said:
Whitaker has said he would decrease Mueller's budget if he were AG, in order to "grind Mueller's investigation to a halt".

He also said, that Sessions recused, not because he had anything to "hide" but, Sessions recused because of an "appearance of Impropriety".

Which apparently is part of the legal lexicon, for when a judge should recuse himself.

So, Whitaker certainly has an appearance of impropriety concerning the Mueller investigation. Should he recuse?

In the sane and rational universe, Whitaker should recuse. How can Whitaker oversee an investigation impartially, when we have video evidence of him admitting his preconceived notions that he holds.

Maybe the evidence Mueller has uncovered will turn him, but, my thinking, is that Trump would not of picked anyone not 100% loyal to him rather than the country or, the law.

So, I don't expect Whitaker to recuse himself. Trump fired Sessions because he recused himself. So, Whitaker would have to be a genius level troll in order to make it into that spot, only to recuse himself. It's much more likely that Whitaker is in fact, a total sellout for power and an obsequious lapdog.
Click to expand...

Using your logic, a person that has expressed an aversion to hate crimes or child porn should not be allowed into the judiciary or law enforcement.
 
Winston said:
Whitaker has said he would decrease Mueller's budget if he were AG, in order to "grind Mueller's investigation to a halt".

He also said, that Sessions recused, not because he had anything to "hide" but, Sessions recused because of an "appearance of Impropriety".

Which apparently is part of the legal lexicon, for when a judge should recuse himself.

So, Whitaker certainly has an appearance of impropriety concerning the Mueller investigation. Should he recuse?

In the sane and rational universe, Whitaker should recuse. How can Whitaker oversee an investigation impartially, when we have video evidence of him admitting his preconceived notions that he holds.

Maybe the evidence Mueller has uncovered will turn him, but, my thinking, is that Trump would not of picked anyone not 100% loyal to him rather than the country or, the law.

So, I don't expect Whitaker to recuse himself. Trump fired Sessions because he recused himself. So, Whitaker would have to be a genius level troll in order to make it into that spot, only to recuse himself. It's much more likely that Whitaker is in fact, a total sellout for power and an obsequious lapdog.
Click to expand...

Dozens of former FBI officials behind the establishment of the democrat witch-hunt investigation have already been fired. Rosenstein has not been fired and he continues to tell congressional investigators to go to hell if they think he will comply to their subpoenas for documents they are needing for their oversight responsibilities.

Sessions did not force Rosenstein to comply with the law. There is new hope that now Whitaker will force the AG to comply with the law.
 
jnug said:
If Whitaker had identified a predisposition in the case or had an obvious conflict of interest before taking the office...yes he would have to recuse himself. If he had not, NO he would not have to recuse himself.
Click to expand...

Well, he has no conflict of interest. He had nothing to do with the claimed events of 2016 which the investigation is about.

I am wondering though why, in such a circumstance, its preferable to have an AG with NO personal or professional opinion about such an investigation?
 
Athanasius68 said:
Why not?
Click to expand...

Nothing you mentioned indicates an appearance of impropriety.

If he indicated that he strongly believed the trump campaigned colluded with Russia, yes recuse.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
code1211 said:
Using your logic, a person that has expressed an aversion to hate crimes or child porn should not be allowed into the judiciary or law enforcement.
Click to expand...

Absurd comparison


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Athanasius68 said:
Well, he has no conflict of interest. He had nothing to do with the claimed events of 2016 which the investigation is about.

I am wondering though why, in such a circumstance, its preferable to have an AG with NO personal or professional opinion about such an investigation?
Click to expand...

He already has a predisposition in the case...he has vocally expressed his disposition in the case. Whitaker has publicly stated there was "no collusion" which is as far across the predisposition line as it gets for one and that is just one of the instances in which he has expressed his disposition in the case. He has advised Trump on how to attack the Investigation pre-appointment. Whitaker ran the election campaign for Sam Clovis, now a key cooperating witness in the Mueller Investigation. Whitaker is dripping with predisposition and conflict of interest. Please just stop or do a little research before posting.

If you don't understand what predisposition is, there is no talking to you. Opinion and predisposition are not the same things. Another English class at DP.

If John Dowd was asked to take an Acting role at the head of Justice, would he recuse himself or not? My God Dowd would have the common sense not to even touch the job with a ten foot pool and Dowd is not the sharpest tool in the shed.

I will not again get into Whitaker's own legal issues here, his own unwillingness to comply with court order and the FBI's ongoing investigation into his own conduct!
 
Winston said:
Whitaker has said he would decrease Mueller's budget if he were AG, in order to "grind Mueller's investigation to a halt".

He also said, that Sessions recused, not because he had anything to "hide" but, Sessions recused because of an "appearance of Impropriety".

Which apparently is part of the legal lexicon, for when a judge should recuse himself.

So, Whitaker certainly has an appearance of impropriety concerning the Mueller investigation. Should he recuse?

In the sane and rational universe, Whitaker should recuse. How can Whitaker oversee an investigation impartially, when we have video evidence of him admitting his preconceived notions that he holds.

Maybe the evidence Mueller has uncovered will turn him, but, my thinking, is that Trump would not of picked anyone not 100% loyal to him rather than the country or, the law.

So, I don't expect Whitaker to recuse himself. Trump fired Sessions because he recused himself. So, Whitaker would have to be a genius level troll in order to make it into that spot, only to recuse himself. It's much more likely that Whitaker is in fact, a total sellout for power and an obsequious lapdog.
Click to expand...

Actually, Trump fired Sessions because he has been a spectacularly ineffective Attorney General...across the board. Trump had absolutely no reason to keep him on.
 
jnug said:
There is no equivalent anywhere in any of the issues surrounding the FBI, Mueller, the Justice Dept generally comparable to the absurdity of Whitaker to its head. So find something the equivalent of Whitaker to the head of Justice and I am with you.
Click to expand...

Nonsense.

Heck, just take a good look at Mueller. Look at his associations. Look at the people he hired.

If you want to cry about preconceived notions on Whitaker's part, you MUST do the same about Mueller.

Or admit you are a hypocrite.
 
Mycroft said:
Actually, Trump fired Sessions because he has been a spectacularly ineffective Attorney General...across the board. Trump had absolutely no reason to keep him on.
Click to expand...
You're not fooling anyone.

Trump told the world repeatedly...tweet after tweet, interview and press briefing, why he was dissatisfied with Sessions. He wasn't shy about it.

That you're gonna after-the fact, ramble on about job performance, is just funny.
 
Winston said:
Nothing you mentioned indicates an appearance of impropriety.

If he indicated that he strongly believed the trump campaigned colluded with Russia, yes recuse.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Whittaker never said he did not believe Trump conspired with Russia. He said Mueller needed additional authority to go after the unrelated issues ie. Manafort. Wasnt the only person who has said this.
 
Winston said:
Absurd comparison


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Explain why you believe this to be true.

You seem to think that a person saying that he opposes a particular action in a particular circumstance is grounds to have him barred from a position of authority over that action.

Why does it apply in one circumstance and in not another?
 
jnug said:
He already has a predisposition in the case...he has vocally expressed his disposition in the case. Whitaker has publicly stated there was "no collusion" which is as far across the predisposition line as it gets for one and that is just one of the instances in which he has expressed his disposition in the case. He has advised Trump on how to attack the Investigation pre-appointment. Whitaker ran the election campaign for Sam Clovis, now a key cooperating witness in the Mueller Investigation. Whitaker is dripping with predisposition and conflict of interest. Please just stop or do a little research before posting.

If you don't understand what predisposition is, there is no talking to you. Opinion and predisposition are not the same things. Another English class at DP.

If John Dowd was asked to take an Acting role at the head of Justice, would he recuse himself or not? My God Dowd would have the common sense not to even touch the job with a ten foot pool and Dowd is not the sharpest tool in the shed.

I will not again get into Whitaker's own legal issues here, his own unwillingness to comply with court order and the FBI's ongoing investigation into his own conduct!
Click to expand...

After more than two years of investigation, there is no evidence of collusion. Well, none if you ignore the collusion between Hillary and all the rest on her illegal server.

How long do you need to not find something before you start to think you haven't found something? Big Foot? Space Aliens? Smart Reporters at CNN?

C'mon, man! Sooner or later, you just need to give it up.
 
Winston said:
That's the legal standard.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Do you have a link to that legal standard that you seem to feel exists?
 
code1211 said:
After more than two years of investigation, there is no evidence of collusion.
Click to expand...
You don't have a clue what Mueller has evidence of.
Hundreds of charges, a number of Trump's campaign team convicted felons, and they are still working on it.

Well, none if you ignore the collusion between Hillary and all the rest on her illegal server.
Click to expand...
FBI investigated, and no criminal charges were brought forth.
And no one actually thought they would, or should. Just stop. How pathetic. BUT HER EMAILS! !{!_!($_($_$$_$_$_$_(T*QUQ$#T_(*

How long do you need to not find something before you start to think you haven't found something? Big Foot? Space Aliens? Smart Reporters at CNN?C'mon, man! Sooner or later, you just need to give it up.
Click to expand...
Ken Starr needed 4 years to bust Clinton on a blow job, I think Muller's progress so far has been 10x better, so cool your jets and stay buckled up.
 
code1211 said:
After more than two years of investigation, there is no evidence of collusion. Well, none if you ignore the collusion between Hillary and all the rest on her illegal server.

How long do you need to not find something before you start to think you haven't found something? Big Foot? Space Aliens? Smart Reporters at CNN?

C'mon, man! Sooner or later, you just need to give it up.
Click to expand...

Two years..and you have no idea what Mueller has and neither do I. Two years is about 400 days short of the Watergate investigation...

You're the one that needs to give it up.
 
jnug said:
Two years..and you have no idea what Mueller has and neither do I. Two years is about 400 days short of the Watergate investigation...

You're the one that needs to give it up.
Click to expand...

I'd be glad to.

Mueller had all the time he needs.

He's denying the rights of private citizens, using threats and intimidation to bankrupt and harass private citizens and in general doing damage to the system of justice that presumes innocence until proven guilty.

His is an immoral attack on the rights of citizens and a move toward dictatorial abuses of our system of government.

He is a criminal in his attacks and needs to be stopped.

He is not investigating a crime. He is attacking citizens to make them compose proofs to conjured conspiracies of the leftist whose work he is doing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom