Warning Sign For All the President’s Men and Him

[veritas1]

The AG is appointed by and answers to the President of the United States. When the president is the subject of the investigation, how is this oversight?

Both Mueller and Rosenstein have stated that Trump was not the subject of the investigation. Even assuming Trump was the subject, does that mean that all oversight ceases? For all intents and purposes, Mueller could go on for years if he wanted to.

 

[Tanngrisnir]

Uh huh. Sure. Democrats always contended that the agencies of intelligence and law enforcement had rogue elements and engaged in illegal activities. What do you think the Church Committee was about? Now it's all hearts and flowers.

Which isn't the 'deep state'. Since you don't understand the term, why continue to try and use it?

 

[BrainNebula]

After Mueller’s appointment, his military and governmental experiences were reported at length in the mainstream press. “Most (serious) people” probably read up on his background and in doing so learned of his widely held respect.

Well then I'm sure they know it in-depth. It's just weird how all of these people went and suddenly ran to find his background and pretty much all seemed to come to conclusions along partisan lines...

 

[TurtleDude]

Conservatives love police officers, except for the FBI. :lol:

I'd say the FBI was generally respected by conservatives until recently. I would suspect the ATF is the least liked FLEO by conservatives. The ATF also tended to attract the most leftwing personalities-obviously on gun issues

 

[JasperL]

What you stated is a new position. The left always opposed the agencies which comprise what we call the deep state. They sure thought it existed back then. Now that Trump is the supposed target, they're all for it.

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/broo...e-investigated-americans-spying-on-americans/

Why do you make dumb stereotyping comments like that? "The left" has sometimes, or often, like "the libertarians" and "the conservatives" and "the others" concerned about civil liberties, privacy among them, opposed some policies of the CIA, FBI etc. I'm not aware of any evidence that the unnamed "the left" versus unnamed "Americans, including libertarians and defenders of civil liberties in general across the political spectrum" opposes or opposed the FBI, or CIA in general.

Your comment is about as nonsensical as pointing to someone who opposed Obama-era policies and concluding they hate America! or that when we object to cops killing unarmed, innocent civilians, or corrupt cops taking payoffs to protect mobsters, etc. that we hate police or LEOs in general.

 

[Thoreau72]

Maybe you're confused and didn't read your own link. The author YOU cited in the article linked by YOU claimed this:



That's an explosive claim - Pan Am flight 103 was downed by U.S. operatives - and it's a lie. The article says, "The theory that Jibril targeted Flight 103 in order to kill the hostage- rescue team is supported by two independent intelligence experts." Well, who is Jibril? From the same Time article:



Oh, so he was an operative working for Iran, who were avenging the U.S. downing of a passenger plane! Not a U.S. operative!

The author lied using a common tactic of hacks and liars, which is to link to an article then dishonestly misrepresent what it demonstrates, knowing gullible readers won't follow the link. You seem to have performed true to form.

And then when it's pointed out, you attack a straw man, instead of the source that lies to you, on an incredibly explosive claim. Suit yourself, but I wouldn't rely on that hack for anything going forward if it was me.

Offering a link to a news story is not like joining a religion. Offering a link for discussion does not mean the poster embraces everything claimed in the link. It is offered for discussion, right?

 

[JasperL]

Offering a link to a news story is not like joining a religion. Offering a link for discussion does not mean the poster embraces everything claimed in the link. It is offered for discussion, right?

He didn't just offer it for discussion. He claimed the article embraced a story, was evidence for the idea, that U.S. OPERATIVES downed a passenger jet killing 300 people. That's a serious and explosive claim and it was a lie, untrue, bull ****.

And it's very telling that you won't even acknowledge that's what he did.... He's treating his readers like gullible morons and you're OK with that.

 

[veritas1]

Which isn't the 'deep state'. Since you don't understand the term, why continue to try and use it?

Maybe you don't.


deep state
noun
a body of people, typically influential members of government agencies or the military, believed to be involved in the secret manipulation or control of government policy.


This is exactly what Democrats always used to be vigilant about. Now they defend it.

 

[veritas1]

Why do you make dumb stereotyping comments like that? "The left" has sometimes, or often, like "the libertarians" and "the conservatives" and "the others" concerned about civil liberties, privacy among them, opposed some policies of the CIA, FBI etc. I'm not aware of any evidence that the unnamed "the left" versus unnamed "Americans, including libertarians and defenders of civil liberties in general across the political spectrum" opposes or opposed the FBI, or CIA in general.

Your comment is about as nonsensical as pointing to someone who opposed Obama-era policies and concluding they hate America! or that when we object to cops killing unarmed, innocent civilians, or corrupt cops taking payoffs to protect mobsters, etc. that we hate police or LEOs in general.

OK. Let's confine it to Democrats. Democrats were always consistently opposed to and wary of, overreach by the agencies of intelligence and law enforcement. Yet, now when we see corruption from the likes of Comey, McCabe, Strzok and others, it's all good because it's done in the name of destroying Trump. Clapper lied to Congress about the NSA collecting data on US citizens yet Democrats let it go because Clapper opposes Trump. It's ALL about Trump. If you're anti-Trump you needn't worry about anything.

Oh, and how often were people called racists for opposing Obama policies? It happened with regularity.

 

[Tanngrisnir]

Maybe you don't.


deep state
noun
a body of people, typically influential members of government agencies or the military, believed to be involved in the secret manipulation or control of government policy.


This is exactly what Democrats always used to be vigilant about. Now they defend it.

That's not what you were citing. The Church Committee wasn't looking into what we now refer to as the deep state.

You lose. Again.

 

[JasperL]

OK. Let's confine it to Democrats. Democrats were always consistently opposed to and wary of, overreach by the agencies of intelligence and law enforcement. Yet, now when we see corruption from the likes of Comey, McCabe, Strzok and others, it's all good because it's done in the name of destroying Trump. Clapper lied to Congress about the NSA collecting data on US citizens yet Democrats let it go because Clapper opposes Trump. It's ALL about Trump. If you're anti-Trump you needn't worry about anything.

Oh, and how often were people called racists for opposing Obama policies? It happened with regularity.

This is boring. All you're doing is finding different ways to say, Democrats BAD, Republicans GOOD!

If there is some serious crime committed by any of those guys, the GOP had the House and Senate and the WH. Take it up with those in power, figure out why those with power didn't do anything with all this corruption going on around there, and get back to us.

 

[veritas1]

That's not what you were citing. The Church Committee wasn't looking into what we now refer to as the deep state.

You lose. Again.

Parsing words won't change facts.

 

[veritas1]

This is boring. All you're doing is finding different ways to say, Democrats BAD, Republicans GOOD!

If there is some serious crime committed by any of those guys, the GOP had the House and Senate and the WH. Take it up with those in power, figure out why those with power didn't do anything with all this corruption going on around there, and get back to us.

It's quite simple. The misdeeds of Comey, et.al. have only really come to light since Comey's removal and the appointment of Mueller. At that point, anything the Trump DOJ might do looks like sour grapes and would be howled at by Democrats as some sort of diversion or obstruction. So, Mueller pretty much has carte blanche since the guy supposedly overseeing him is also the one who appointed him without even informing Sessions or the WH.

 

[Tanngrisnir]

Parsing words won't change facts.

Good thing I'm not doing that, in that case.

Easy win, as always.

 

[veritas1]

Good thing I'm not doing that, in that case.

Easy win, as always.

It's hard for you to win when you barely even play.

 

[JasperL]

It's quite simple. The misdeeds of Comey, et.al. have only really come to light since Comey's removal and the appointment of Mueller. At that point, anything the Trump DOJ might do looks like sour grapes and would be howled at by Democrats as some sort of diversion or obstruction. So, Mueller pretty much has carte blanche since the guy supposedly overseeing him is also the one who appointed him without even informing Sessions or the WH.

Goodness, that's good stuff there. Tell yourself what you need to I guess.

 

[JoanDavis]

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/jeffrey-toobin-mueller-memo_us_5c07798be4b0a6e4ebd9b0df

Mueller was one of the most respected men in public life until his appointment as Special Prosecutor whereupon Trumpians promptly discovered he’d been misjudged. The time is here or almost here for the reckoning.

John McCain was also one of the most respected men in America. But the minute trump called him a coward and a traitor, the trumpsters trashed this great man's sterling career and service. trumpsters CELEBRATED when McCain passed away. They CELEBRATED. McCain was not Bin Laden. He was a war hero and the trumpsters CELEBRATED his death.

DISGUSTING!

 

[Thoreau72]

He didn't just offer it for discussion. He claimed the article embraced a story, was evidence for the idea, that U.S. OPERATIVES downed a passenger jet killing 300 people. That's a serious and explosive claim and it was a lie, untrue, bull ****.

And it's very telling that you won't even acknowledge that's what he did.... He's treating his readers like gullible morons and you're OK with that.

I have long lived by the old saying "buyer beware". Much of what is presented for public consumption is false. So the OP misrepresented a story. Certainly not the first time that's ever happened, assuming your claim is correct.

As for Pan Am 103, it's been years since I've read into that. As I recall there were some very interesting circumstances and connections between players. I can't remember the exact details and don't really care today. Likely the US spooks did have a role.

 

[JasperL]

I have long lived by the old saying "buyer beware". Much of what is presented for public consumption is false. So the OP misrepresented a story. Certainly not the first time that's ever happened, assuming your claim is correct.

As for Pan Am 103, it's been years since I've read into that. As I recall there were some very interesting circumstances and connections between players. I can't remember the exact details and don't really care today. Likely the US spooks did have a role.

Read you own article and follow the link if you don't believe me. It's odd to live by "buyer beware" then ignore when the seller ripped you off and sold you a fraud. Just sayin....