Crime Ferris Mueller's Election Off (Mueller thread v. 24)

[Andy Capp]

Can we talk about Whitaker please?



A judge HAS to be New Testament to be worthy, wtf is that? Seriously, WTF is that shit?

I was going to make a thread about this, and I still might, but holy shit (no pun intended)

Whittaker is allowed to have personal opinions.

Whittaker is allowed to have negative opinions about the Muller investigation.

There is absolutely no reason for Whittaker to recuse himself.

Media outrage isn't a sufficient reason.

Admitted bias and the questionable legality of his appointment are 2.

 

[Farmer Br0wn]

Admitted bias

Irrelevant.

The acting attorney general is allowed to have a personal opinion.

and the questionable legality of his appointment are 2.

Questionable only to those opposed to the President.

 

[Andy Capp]

Irrelevant.

The acting attorney general is allowed to have a personal opinion.


Questionable only to those opposed to the President.

If that equals people who insist upon complying with the US constitution, I'd say you're exactly right.

 

[Joe]

I don't know how much should be read into the assange revelation. The office that inadvertantely leaked it is not the office of special counsel. And it's not a case with clear parallels to Mueller's investigatory threads beyond assange himself.

Well there seems to be a lot of buzz going around that something big is going to go down soon.

 

[Bobby 3 Sticks]

Update: The sealed case where the en banc request (all dc circuit judges would review minus tRUmps loan appointee who recused) was made had a 16 page (double spaced) motion filed at the appeals court the same day tRUmp submitted answers tp Mueller. This makes it more likely that tRUmp has been subpoenaed and is fighting it out in the courts in a sealed case .



My personal take is this is a tRUmp subpoena involving a case on tRUmp jr regarding the tower meeting

 

[bobgeese]

Remind me,


What was it liberals here were saying about the sanctity of our election?

 

[tehJameson]

Lol the salty tears from deplorables here, keep em coming. Can't wait to see what bullshit you morons spew when that ugly fuckface jr gets indicted.

 

[Rational Poster]

Remind me,


What was it liberals here were saying about the sanctity of our election?

I guess when you get found guilty of lying to the FBI you can't get your twitter account verified.

 

[Bobby 3 Sticks]

Update:

Judge ordered Papadopoulos to report on Monday to jail .


Flynn sentencing memo due Dec 4 with sentencing to come Dec 18. Another one of @bobgeese and @waiguoren (I think on Wai) crazy CTs will be disproven when Flynn is officially sentenced .

Rick Gates is still cooperating .

Jerome Corsi - Roger Stone intermediary to Wikileaks is in plea negotiations.

This crime family isn't that good

 

[bobgeese]

Update:

Judge ordered Papadopoulos to report on Monday to jail .


Flynn sentencing memo due Dec 4 with sentencing to come Dec 18. Another one of @bobgeese and @waiguoren (I think on Wai) crazy CTs will be disproven when Flynn is officially sentenced .

Rick Gates is still cooperating .

Jerome Corsi - Roger Stone intermediary to Wikileaks is in plea negotiations.

This crime family isn't that good

And what crazy conspiracy is that?


Oh that’s right, you’re living in a fantasy again.

 

[Trotsky]

Irrelevant.

The acting attorney general is allowed to have a personal opinion.

Good lord, the hypocrisy.

Should I dredge up your posts on Peter Strzok?

 

[MilesAbove]

Can I just say I appreciate the fact I have no f'n idea what Meuller sounds like. I lived through the whole Clinton thing and even as a young teen I couldn't stand how the investigation was so damn talked about by the people working on it (and that was before 24/7 news everywhere). Mueller is talked about a lot, but he just does his job and doesn't try to make it about himself as far as I can tell.

 

[Farmer Br0wn]

Good lord, the hypocrisy.

Should I dredge up your posts on Peter Strzok?

Please do.

You'll find I've been consistent on this issue.

 

[Bobby 3 Sticks]

And what crazy conspiracy is that?


Oh that’s right, you’re living in a fantasy again.

The altered 302s .The ones you said is why they're not sentencing Flynn. Not that Flynn has a bunch of info to give but that they're hiding the 302s which would exonerate Flynn

Implying, no.

Provided evidence, absolutely.


Altered 302’s, he page and McCabe all knew, Grassley knows. Is about to expose it as he outed the name of the FBI agent who was previously unnamed.

I’ll honestly check out your other assertion.

 

[bobgeese]

The altered 302s .The ones you said is why they're not sentencing Flynn. Not that Flynn has a bunch of info to give but that they're hiding the 302s which would exonerate Flynn

There is absolutely no question there is fuckery going on with the 302’s. Pretending there isn’t, well that’s just willful ignorance.

 

[Bobby 3 Sticks]

There is absolutely no question there is fuckery going on with the 302’s. Pretending there isn’t, well that’s just willful ignorance.

Inflammatory =/= altered .You keep pushing the right wing ct shit though

 

[tehJameson]

And what crazy conspiracy is that?


Oh that’s right, you’re living in a fantasy again.

You're so stupid it hurts.

 

[tehJameson]

Mueller seems to trigger deplorables even more than minorities/women in government positions.

Keep up the good work.

 

[bobgeese]

Inflammatory =/= altered .You keep pushing the right wing ct shit though

From the hill

Meadows suggested one focus is whether FBI interview reports — known as 302 reports — about Flynn were altered to improve the chances he'd be prosecuted.

"I brought this up with the inspector general the other day. Some of those key witness will be asked to appear before House Oversight," he added.




"Conspiracy Theory” according to the left.

The same people who believe all the Obama administration officials were good boys who dindu nuffin, even though a number of them have already had their careers end over the matter.

 

[MikeMcMann]

Please do.

You'll find I've been consistent on this issue.

Would your view change if I dug up an old a several years old interview by Whittaker I saw last week where he was explaining the conditions of recusal? He was very clear that another politician had to recuse themselves from a gov't role because they had made public statement that gave the perception of conflict and his position was the mere perception of conflict was unfortunately enough.

This is a new idea (and by new I mean Whittaker new) that your expressed personal views are not reason for recusal.

Imagine a judge saying before a case 'boy I've been watching this Trump stuff and think he is guilty as hell' or a future Trump jury saying 'oh ya this dude is guilty' and someone like you arguing 'that is just their personal views. Once sworn in and doing their job I am sure they will act accordingly'.