All things Spygate

justthefacts

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 20, 2010
Messages
10,651
Reaction score
1,380
Points
113
I thought sure you suggested before that professionals could separate their political beliefs from the professional duties? Like when the Mueller investigation was LOADED with Democrat prosecutors and Hillary supporters.

You didn’t question a thing that they concluded that implicated Trump for obstruction of justice.

Now...it appears you’ve grown suspicious of attorneys that also are donors.

It seems like you’re trying to replace howie as the biggest hypocrite on this forum.
Remember when you dismissed the HHS IG's report in April because she worked in the Obama administration even though she'd recently been appointed to her post by Trump?
 

bga1

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
40,906
Reaction score
2,462
Points
113
Remember when you dismissed the HHS IG's report in April because she worked in the Obama administration even though she'd recently been appointed to her post by Trump?
If you worked for Obama and stayed on his good side, you were likely dishonest.
 

KillerGopherFan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2013
Messages
15,878
Reaction score
1,526
Points
113
Remember when you dismissed the HHS IG's report in April because she worked in the Obama administration even though she'd recently been appointed to her post by Trump?
What the hell does that have to do with prosecuting attorneys potentially being biased for political reasons?

She wasn’t attempting to put people in prison.

And her promotion wasn’t made by Trump. It was a system promotion based on a line of succession and the numerous bureaucrats that make up the Federal govt.

You’re deflecting hypocrite. How about responding to the actual criticism of your relativism when it comes to calling out the DOJ’s potential political bias?
 

bga1

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
40,906
Reaction score
2,462
Points
113
Excerpts of the Barr interview:
1. Obama used the criminal justice system as a political weapon
2. Barr alludes to obvious Obama abuse of power


 

justthefacts

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 20, 2010
Messages
10,651
Reaction score
1,380
Points
113
What the hell does that have to do with prosecuting attorneys potentially being biased for political reasons?

She wasn’t attempting to put people in prison.

And her promotion wasn’t made by Trump. It was a system promotion based on a line of succession and the numerous bureaucrats that make up the Federal govt.

You’re deflecting hypocrite. How about responding to the actual criticism of your relativism when it comes to calling out the DOJ’s potential political bias?
You started this by saying Jeff Jensen was non-partisan. I'm just pointing out that using your own criteria, he's partisan.

 
Last edited:

KillerGopherFan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2013
Messages
15,878
Reaction score
1,526
Points
113
You started this by saying Jeff Jensen was partisan. I'm just pointing out that using your own criteria, he's partisan.

My criteria? You brought up the donations. You’re one of those that vehemently defended the Mueller team against accusations of bias in their legal conclusions.

I would assume that almost every prosecutor has a political bias, but is expected to put their personal beliefs aside when using legal standards. I haven’t heard one criticism of Jeff Jensen’s decision or any legal basis to contradict his finding. In fact, most Democrats that have simply criticized the decision as Barr being political when he chose to take Jensen’s advice as if it was Barr and Barr alone that made this decision. That’s a narrative, not a legal argument.

My concern about the Mueller team was that out of approximately 18 investigative prosecutors, the vast majority were Democrats and Democrat donors. Were there no Republicans available? A team of prosecuting attorneys that are overwhelmingly Democrat? (And please don’t tell me that Mueller is a Republican. Mueller was a joke.)

Jeff Jensen’s recommendation can be scrutinized for it’s legal basis, and any decision he makes will be a reflection on his legal professionalism and reputation. On the other hand, a team of lawyers don’t have to worry about their individual reputation being scrutinized b/c they are protected by the group’s decision rather than one that reflects solely on them individually.
 

howeda7

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
44,358
Reaction score
2,847
Points
113
They are investigating what he did. Now. Will be ever be brought to full justice? No. I don't think that the electric chair for the first African American president would be a good look.

Do you really think that Barr is going to tell Jake Gibson whether they are going to investigate Obama or are investigating him? Are you that stupid?
What would constitute "full justice" for Obama?
 

justthefacts

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 20, 2010
Messages
10,651
Reaction score
1,380
Points
113
My criteria? You brought up the donations. You’re one of those that vehemently defended the Mueller team against accusations of bias in their legal conclusions.

I would assume that almost every prosecutor has a political bias, but is expected to put their personal beliefs aside when using legal standards. I haven’t heard one criticism of Jeff Jensen’s decision or any legal basis to contradict his finding. In fact, most Democrats that have simply criticized the decision as Barr being political when he chose to take Jensen’s advice as if it was Barr and Barr alone that made this decision. That’s a narrative, not a legal argument.

My concern about the Mueller team was that out of approximately 18 investigative prosecutors, the vast majority were Democrats and Democrat donors. Were there no Republicans available? A team of prosecuting attorneys that are overwhelmingly Democrat? (And please don’t tell me that Mueller is a Republican. Mueller was a joke.)

Jeff Jensen’s recommendation can be scrutinized for it’s legal basis, and any decision he makes will be a reflection on his legal professionalism and reputation. On the other hand, a team of lawyers don’t have to worry about their individual reputation being scrutinized b/c they are protected by the group’s decision rather than one that reflects solely on them individually.
I brought up the donations because you told me that donations are an indicator of partisan bias. The best part is, you used that criteria during a conversation about Christi Grimm. Grimm had never contributed to anyone, but because lots of people in the federal government had donated to Democrats, you were sure Grimm was a Democrat.

So Jeff Jensen, who has actively donated to Republicans is not partisan. But Christ Grimm, who simply works in the federal government, is partisan.

The problem with spending 3 years accusing anyone critical of Trump of being a partisan hack is that eventually the logic you used to demonstrate that conclusion becomes so tortured it eventually bites you.
 

KillerGopherFan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2013
Messages
15,878
Reaction score
1,526
Points
113
I brought up the donations because you told me that donations are an indicator of partisan bias. The best part is, you used that criteria during a conversation about Christi Grimm. Grimm had never contributed to anyone, but because lots of people in the federal government had donated to Democrats, you were sure Grimm was a Democrat.

So Jeff Jensen, who has actively donated to Republicans is not partisan. But Christ Grimm, who simply works in the federal government, is partisan.

The problem with spending 3 years accusing anyone critical of Trump of being a partisan hack is that eventually the logic you used to demonstrate that conclusion becomes so tortured it eventually bites you.
Bullshit! You brought up the donations as an excuse to discredit Jeff Jensen as a partisan. You didn’t think about the fact that you yourself strongly defended the Mueller team to those accusations of bias.

Grimm is a deflection that you want to keep bringing up while you are drowning in hypocrisy. Grimm is an inconsequential bureaucrat relative to DOJ officials either attempting to create grounds for a presidential impeachment or the prosecution of federal government officials accused of lying to the FBI.

There are lots of partisans in the federal government, but when the DOJ is partisan, it’s serious shit. You’ve been accusing Barr of being partisan, but ignore and excuse the Mueller team political partisanship. You didn’t think much of the donor list of the Mueller team, but Jensen’s donations are critical?

Hypocrite!
 

Section2

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
44,695
Reaction score
1,706
Points
113
I brought up the donations because you told me that donations are an indicator of partisan bias. The best part is, you used that criteria during a conversation about Christi Grimm. Grimm had never contributed to anyone, but because lots of people in the federal government had donated to Democrats, you were sure Grimm was a Democrat.

So Jeff Jensen, who has actively donated to Republicans is not partisan. But Christ Grimm, who simply works in the federal government, is partisan.

The problem with spending 3 years accusing anyone critical of Trump of being a partisan hack is that eventually the logic you used to demonstrate that conclusion becomes so tortured it eventually bites you.
There are a ton of "Republicans" that are anti Trump. None of it really matters, everyone is biased to some degree. The question is whether that bias causes them to abuse their power or commit crimes.
 

KillerGopherFan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2013
Messages
15,878
Reaction score
1,526
Points
113
Question for both of you hacks, JTF and howie.

Are you now saying that the Mueller team was, in fact, a tainted group of investigating prosecutors out to get Trump b/c they were Democrats and Democrat donors?
 

bga1

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
40,906
Reaction score
2,462
Points
113
There are a ton of "Republicans" that are anti Trump. None of it really matters, everyone is biased to some degree. The question is whether that bias causes them to abuse their power or commit crimes.
100% correct. The truth actually has a side. Justice actually has a side. The left does not take the path of truth or justice. That is true in the current day and historically. Leftists are dishonest and power driven. This is what we saw in the Obama era. Now we see Barr, actually attempting to restore credibility to the justice system. In so doing he is attempting to painstakingly avoid the same type of political targeting as Obama did. The result is a slow process that searches for the truth and then names names. Obama did the reverse. He looked for the names of political opponents and attempted to find, frame or otherwise pin a crime on them.

Incredible corruption. Incredible corruption of the American justice system so that people no longer believe in it. Every decision is now view politically and will be for some time because of the Obama administration's abuses.
 

justthefacts

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 20, 2010
Messages
10,651
Reaction score
1,380
Points
113
Bullshit! You brought up the donations as an excuse to discredit Jeff Jensen as a partisan. You didn’t think about the fact that you yourself strongly defended the Mueller team to those accusations of bias.

Grimm is a deflection that you want to keep bringing up while you are drowning in hypocrisy. Grimm is an inconsequential bureaucrat relative to DOJ officials either attempting to create grounds for a presidential impeachment or the prosecution of federal government officials accused of lying to the FBI.

There are lots of partisans in the federal government, but when the DOJ is partisan, it’s serious shit. You’ve been accusing Barr of being partisan, but ignore and excuse the Mueller team political partisanship. You didn’t think much of the donor list of the Mueller team, but Jensen’s donations are critical?

Hypocrite!
Like I said, I was just responding to the fact that a month ago I was told that donations by federal employees meant they were partisan. If that's not true, great.
 

justthefacts

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 20, 2010
Messages
10,651
Reaction score
1,380
Points
113
Question for both of you hacks, JTF and howie.

Are you now saying that the Mueller team was, in fact, a tainted group of investigating prosecutors out to get Trump b/c they were Democrats and Democrat donors?
Since Mueller ultimately decided not to charge Trump, are you now saying that they were a bunch of upstanding, impartial investigators?
 

KillerGopherFan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2013
Messages
15,878
Reaction score
1,526
Points
113
Like I said, I was just responding to the fact that a month ago I was told that donations by federal employees meant they were partisan. If that's not true, great.
Hey dipstick. I didn’t use Grimm’s donations, if she made any, to argue that she was biased. My “suspicions” were based on other things, but included that most of the federal government was made up of Democrats (based on the amount that federal workers contribute to Democrats, and could well have led to her promotion.

Nice rewrite of posting history though.
 

KillerGopherFan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2013
Messages
15,878
Reaction score
1,526
Points
113
Since Mueller ultimately decided not to charge Trump, are you now saying that they were a bunch of upstanding, impartial investigators?
No. They said they didn’t have the authority to charge Trump. The implication was, they would if they could. I believe you, howie and other lefties suggested that quite often.
 

justthefacts

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 20, 2010
Messages
10,651
Reaction score
1,380
Points
113
Hey dipstick. I didn’t use Grimm’s donations, if she made any, to argue that she was biased. My “suspicions” were based on other things, but included that most of the federal government was made up of Democrats (based on the amount that federal workers contribute to Democrats, and could well have led to her promotion.

Nice rewrite of posting history though.
This is so great. You didn't use Grimm's actual donations to label her a partisan hack, you used donations by other people to label her a partisan hack. You're right, that makes a LOT more sense than using those of the person him/herself.

A Republican specifically gave Jeff Jensen his job, so that makes Jeff Jensen a Republican, I guess.
 

howeda7

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
44,358
Reaction score
2,847
Points
113
No. They said they didn’t have the authority to charge Trump. The implication was, they would if they could. I believe you, howie and other lefties suggested that quite often.
Yes. That is what they said.
 

howeda7

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
44,358
Reaction score
2,847
Points
113
Oh STFU. You set new heights for hypocrisy every time you post. JTF is trying to give you a run for your money. My money is still on you though.
You know you've scored a point when you start cussing.
 

KillerGopherFan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2013
Messages
15,878
Reaction score
1,526
Points
113
This is so great. You didn't use Grimm's actual donations to label her a partisan hack, you used donations by other people to label her a partisan hack. You're right, that makes a LOT more sense than using those of the person him/herself.

A Republican specifically gave Jeff Jensen his job, so that makes Jeff Jensen a Republican, I guess.
You really don’t want to talk about the Mueller team and their bias, do you? More deflection.

I’ll ask again, was Mueller’s team biased since they were donors to the Democrats and Hillary? Must be b/c you concluded that Jensen was biased b/c of his.

JTF should demand justice for Trump!!!
 

justthefacts

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 20, 2010
Messages
10,651
Reaction score
1,380
Points
113
You really don’t want to talk about the Mueller team and their bias, do you? More deflection.

I’ll ask again, was Mueller’s team biased since they were donors to the Democrats and Hillary? Must be b/c you concluded that Jensen was biased b/c of his.

JTF should demand justice for Trump!!!
Portions of Mueller's team might have been biased toward Democrats, but their decisions were ultimately governed by a lifelong Republican, a man who was first appointed to the DOJ by Ronald Reagan and was subsequently nominated by 2 other Republican Presidents.

How about Jeff Jensen?
 

KillerGopherFan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2013
Messages
15,878
Reaction score
1,526
Points
113
You know you've scored a point when you start cussing.
If all I was doing were cussing, I suppose that might be true. Unlike you, I made actual points and asked a specific question to which I can’t seem to get an answer.
 

KillerGopherFan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2013
Messages
15,878
Reaction score
1,526
Points
113
Portions of Mueller's team might have been biased toward Democrats, but their decisions were ultimately governed by a lifelong Republican, a man who was first appointed to the DOJ by Ronald Reagan and was subsequently nominated by 2 other Republican Presidents.

How about Jeff Jensen?
As anticipated...“Mueller’s a Republican!!!”. :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO:

A doddering, dementia-laden one led around by lefties...but a Republican. :ROFLMAO:
 

Section2

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
44,695
Reaction score
1,706
Points
113
Portions of Mueller's team might have been biased toward Democrats, but their decisions were ultimately governed by a lifelong Republican, a man who was first appointed to the DOJ by Ronald Reagan and was subsequently nominated by 2 other Republican Presidents.
None of which means he couldn't have been politically motivated against Trump.
 
Top Bottom