Democracy Forums  
About Us Enab.Stats Register FAQ Members List Social Groups Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read


Go Back   Democracy Forums > Debate > Current Events and General Discussion

Reply
Share |
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old 06-16-2018, 12:58 AM
Trish's Avatar
Trish Trish is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 21,895
Reputation: 4221
Trish Master debaterTrish Master debaterTrish Master debaterTrish Master debaterTrish Master debaterTrish Master debaterTrish Master debaterTrish Master debaterTrish Master debaterTrish Master debaterTrish Master debater
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CdrMike View Post
And you've evidence that that is what is happening with this case, right? That Robert Mueller is purposefully withholding exculpatory evidence in order to pressure Manafort into providing evidence or testimony to his investigation?


Or are you simply repeating something you've heard on Fox News from people who have a bias, if not an agenda, when making such allegations against Mr. Mueller?
This is hardly his only case. Mueller is undoubtedly pressuring Manafort. He'd be a damn fool not to.

Look it up. American taxpayers ended up paying $100 million in damages because of what Mueller did in the Boston case. Info is easy to find and it doesn't come from FOX.
__________________
Blue Dog Democrat

"Since when did Democrats become so judgmental and intolerant?" C. Paglia

“When I look at the political situation now, all I really see is that the Democrats are against the Republicans, the Republicans are against the Democrats, and no one’s really for America.” S. Barclay

"I’m remaining a registered Democrat because I still hope for the reform of my party" C. Paglia

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." Edmund Burke
Reply With Quote

Advertisement [Remove Advertisement]

  #12  
Old 06-16-2018, 08:26 AM
btthegreat btthegreat is offline
Moderation-in-All-things
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Oregon
Posts: 5,742
Reputation: 4619
btthegreat Master debaterbtthegreat Master debaterbtthegreat Master debaterbtthegreat Master debaterbtthegreat Master debaterbtthegreat Master debaterbtthegreat Master debaterbtthegreat Master debaterbtthegreat Master debaterbtthegreat Master debaterbtthegreat Master debater
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trish View Post
No, he's not. He's interested in winning. And he'll go to great lengths to do so - even to knowingly withholding exculpatory evidence whereupon innocent men go to prison. It may not be a pot charge but he's not above using some of the same methods. He's driven - to win - period.
You can't be interested in law enforcement and not be interested in winning a possible case of witness tampering. A prosecutor who is not vigorous in prosecuting that kind of case, needs to retire. This stuff akin to witness intimidation or bribing a judge. The whole system of justice crumbles if you are half-hearted about tampering.


I'd be interested in seeing links o this ' withholding evidence' charge, if you have a ABA disciplinary hearing/ ethics board finding or a judicial finding holding him personally in contempt of court for such a breach of ethics.

Again he can want to both discourage the behavior of witness tampering AND want to use a potential charge as leverage to gain cooperation. They are not mutually exclusive.

Last edited by btthegreat; 06-16-2018 at 08:31 AM..
Reply With Quote

  #13  
Old 06-16-2018, 04:03 PM
CdrMike's Avatar
CdrMike CdrMike is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Va Beach
Posts: 27,761
Reputation: 4893
CdrMike Master debaterCdrMike Master debaterCdrMike Master debaterCdrMike Master debaterCdrMike Master debaterCdrMike Master debaterCdrMike Master debaterCdrMike Master debaterCdrMike Master debaterCdrMike Master debaterCdrMike Master debater
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trish View Post
This is hardly his only case. Mueller is undoubtedly pressuring Manafort. He'd be a damn fool not to.

Look it up. American taxpayers ended up paying $100 million in damages because of what Mueller did in the Boston case. Info is easy to find and it doesn't come from FOX.
Oh, I do so love story time. Gather 'round kids, let's read a story.

So today's story is about the 30+ year scandal that apparently all rests on the shoulders of a single man. Now, our story begins way back in the mists of time, in the fantasy world of Boston in 1965. And starts with the death of a small-time crook named Edward "Teddy" Deegan, a member of Boston's then-seedy underbelly and a man who history has since forgotten. The murder would be investigated, but did not "break" until another crook under the employ of the infamous mob boss and FBI informant Whitey Bulgar fingered four other crooks for the deed. The "informant" was not simply settling a score, but was actually covering for the brother of a friend who would turn out to be a serial killer.

So despite having alibis (including one being in Florida on the night of the murder), the four were charged, tried, and wrongly convicted of the murder based upon the testimony of an "informant." History does not show if the FBI knew at the time that their "informant" was a lying fuck or not, but we're to assume they did and nonetheless railroaded these poor men into jail (two onto Death Row). And as the years would go by, information would slowly trickle out that the four were actually innocent of the murder, from the "informant" eventually fessing up to one of the FBI agents involved admitting he knew said "informant" was full of shit. But the four kept being denied pardons and so remained in jail for the following 20 years.

Enter our "villain," Mr. Robert Mueller, a man slowly making a name for himself in the federal legal system. He joins the Boston US Attorney's office in 1982, first as assistant US Attorney, then as acting US Attorney for a year. Now, Mueller's predecessor and successor would both submit letters opposing the pardon of one of the four wrongly convicted men during their years in office. But aside from one former Parole Board member insisting that he saw letters from Mueller, no official record exists of his ever weighing in on the matter. And this is what is so damning, because he was supposed to know these men were innocent and fight valiantly to see their release, his failure to do so making him one of the worst lawmen in history!

As Robert Mueller never engaged in that heroic struggle to see them freed, the four men would eventually be reduced to two as the others had died in prison. Of the remaining two, one would receive clemency in '97 and the other finally released when the whole noxious maelstrom broke in the early 2000s upon the revelations about the criminal relationship between Bulgar and his FBI handlers.

And so, kiddies, there you have it: Robert Mueller was responsible for the payout of $100 million because a case that was prosecuted when he was attending Princeton and have been bounced around from appeal to appeal for decades did not lead to pardons on his watch. He is an absolute monster for not having saved these men and is proof that he's a dirty cop who will do anything to frame innocent men like Paul Manafort.
__________________
"Thank God we live in a world where suspicion alone does not constitute a crime." - Yuri Orlov, Lord of War

"Be normal, and the crowd will accept you. Be deranged, and they will make you their leader." - Christopher Titus

"But the tale of humanity will never come to a close, for the struggle of survival is a war without end, and war...war never changes." - Narrator, Fallout 3

Last edited by CdrMike; 06-16-2018 at 04:05 PM..
Reply With Quote

  #14  
Old 06-17-2018, 06:07 AM
bdubya bdubya is offline
Salacious and Unverified
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 3,905
Reputation: 2363
bdubya Master debaterbdubya Master debaterbdubya Master debaterbdubya Master debaterbdubya Master debaterbdubya Master debaterbdubya Master debaterbdubya Master debaterbdubya Master debaterbdubya Master debaterbdubya Master debater
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CdrMike View Post
Oh, I do so love story time. Gather 'round kids, let's read a story.
We can also read what the very judge who awarded the $101M has to say:

Quote:
Based on the voluminous evidence submitted in the trial, and having written a 105-page decision awarding them $101.8 million, I can say without equivocation that Mr. Mueller, who worked in the United States attorney’s office in Boston from 1982 to 1988, including a brief stint as the acting head of the office, had no involvement in that case. He was never even mentioned.
Info is, indeed, easy to find. Unfortunately, slander is even easier to repeat.
__________________
This is what happens when spray tan crosses the blood-brain barrier."

-unidentified friend of mine
Reply With Quote

  #15  
Old 06-17-2018, 02:07 PM
btthegreat btthegreat is offline
Moderation-in-All-things
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Oregon
Posts: 5,742
Reputation: 4619
btthegreat Master debaterbtthegreat Master debaterbtthegreat Master debaterbtthegreat Master debaterbtthegreat Master debaterbtthegreat Master debaterbtthegreat Master debaterbtthegreat Master debaterbtthegreat Master debaterbtthegreat Master debaterbtthegreat Master debater
Default

So the supposed 'exculpatory evidence' that he withheld in this prosecution was not any evidence he knew existed during the trial because he wasn't even working in the US attorney's office, let alone working on this case. This evidence he held from the defense, would be his own letter of recommendation for their release over a decade after the trial finished?

Well now all we have to figure out is who plays this slimeball of a prosecutor in the upcoming ABC movie.

Last edited by btthegreat; 06-17-2018 at 02:17 PM..
Reply With Quote

  #16  
Old 06-18-2018, 06:37 PM
Trish's Avatar
Trish Trish is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 21,895
Reputation: 4221
Trish Master debaterTrish Master debaterTrish Master debaterTrish Master debaterTrish Master debaterTrish Master debaterTrish Master debaterTrish Master debaterTrish Master debaterTrish Master debaterTrish Master debater
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bdubya View Post
We can also read what the very judge who awarded the $101M has to say:



Info is, indeed, easy to find. Unfortunately, slander is even easier to repeat.
I find the info at your link most persuasive as it is first person comments from the judge involved. Thanks to you and Mike for posting them.

I stand corrected. I will say that both your link and Mike's are relatively new articles - 4/18. The info I've read before this was dated much earlier. Years earlier to be specific. In fact, one of the pieces I had read is referenced in the article to which Mike linked and is dated 2011. That was not the only source of my opinion. None of that matters now as the judge has definitively quashed that area of speculation. There is, however a lot of time between 2011 and 2018.
What I presented as fact was not slander. I believed, based on several sources, what I said was true. Now that I have read the judge's comments, I no longer have that opinion, nor will I be presenting the claims as truth.

Thanks for the new info. I appreciate it.

Thanks to you too, Mike.
__________________
Blue Dog Democrat

"Since when did Democrats become so judgmental and intolerant?" C. Paglia

“When I look at the political situation now, all I really see is that the Democrats are against the Republicans, the Republicans are against the Democrats, and no one’s really for America.” S. Barclay

"I’m remaining a registered Democrat because I still hope for the reform of my party" C. Paglia

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." Edmund Burke
Reply With Quote

  #17  
Old 06-19-2018, 01:41 AM
CdrMike's Avatar
CdrMike CdrMike is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Va Beach
Posts: 27,761
Reputation: 4893
CdrMike Master debaterCdrMike Master debaterCdrMike Master debaterCdrMike Master debaterCdrMike Master debaterCdrMike Master debaterCdrMike Master debaterCdrMike Master debaterCdrMike Master debaterCdrMike Master debaterCdrMike Master debater
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trish View Post
I find the info at your link most persuasive as it is first person comments from the judge involved. Thanks to you and Mike for posting them.

I stand corrected. I will say that both your link and Mike's are relatively new articles - 4/18. The info I've read before this was dated much earlier. Years earlier to be specific. In fact, one of the pieces I had read is referenced in the article to which Mike linked and is dated 2011. That was not the only source of my opinion. None of that matters now as the judge has definitively quashed that area of speculation. There is, however a lot of time between 2011 and 2018.
What I presented as fact was not slander. I believed, based on several sources, what I said was true. Now that I have read the judge's comments, I no longer have that opinion, nor will I be presenting the claims as truth.

Thanks for the new info. I appreciate it.

Thanks to you too, Mike.
This is rather the point I have been getting at in the past, Trish. Even if the garbage you were fed did not come from Fox, odds are it either started there or shares the same original source, if not being the source.

While Robert Mueller is not a saint, nor are those on his team, the man has not engaged in the sort of behavior attributed to him for the purposes of casting a pall upon his investigation. And yes, before you say it, he selected Weissman who is a man with troubling issues in his past. But I have doubts you're going to find many men in federal law enforcement who were not in one way or another connected to "questionable" legal practices. That includes the former US Attorney who is now regularly appearing on conservative news shows to assert that not only does his current client possess the power to pardon himself, but that he can do virtually whatever he likes in office because he cannot be prosecuted until he leaves.
__________________
"Thank God we live in a world where suspicion alone does not constitute a crime." - Yuri Orlov, Lord of War

"Be normal, and the crowd will accept you. Be deranged, and they will make you their leader." - Christopher Titus

"But the tale of humanity will never come to a close, for the struggle of survival is a war without end, and war...war never changes." - Narrator, Fallout 3
Reply With Quote

  #18  
Old 06-19-2018, 04:49 AM
Trish's Avatar
Trish Trish is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 21,895
Reputation: 4221
Trish Master debaterTrish Master debaterTrish Master debaterTrish Master debaterTrish Master debaterTrish Master debaterTrish Master debaterTrish Master debaterTrish Master debaterTrish Master debaterTrish Master debater
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CdrMike View Post
This is rather the point I have been getting at in the past, Trish. Even if the garbage you were fed did not come from Fox, odds are it either started there or shares the same original source, if not being the source.

While Robert Mueller is not a saint, nor are those on his team, the man has not engaged in the sort of behavior attributed to him for the purposes of casting a pall upon his investigation. And yes, before you say it, he selected Weissman who is a man with troubling issues in his past. But I have doubts you're going to find many men in federal law enforcement who were not in one way or another connected to "questionable" legal practices. That includes the former US Attorney who is now regularly appearing on conservative news shows to assert that not only does his current client possess the power to pardon himself, but that he can do virtually whatever he likes in office because he cannot be prosecuted until he leaves.
The point is Mike, that I acknowledge and accept the judge's comments as being true rather than what I had previously read. I don't need your "point." I've never been uncompromising, especially when presented with factual information contrary to previous thoughts. I recognize and openly concede when I've been wrong and have never pretended to be infallible. Somewhat different than most here.
__________________
Blue Dog Democrat

"Since when did Democrats become so judgmental and intolerant?" C. Paglia

“When I look at the political situation now, all I really see is that the Democrats are against the Republicans, the Republicans are against the Democrats, and no one’s really for America.” S. Barclay

"I’m remaining a registered Democrat because I still hope for the reform of my party" C. Paglia

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." Edmund Burke
Reply With Quote

  #19  
Old 06-20-2018, 11:06 AM
bdubya bdubya is offline
Salacious and Unverified
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 3,905
Reputation: 2363
bdubya Master debaterbdubya Master debaterbdubya Master debaterbdubya Master debaterbdubya Master debaterbdubya Master debaterbdubya Master debaterbdubya Master debaterbdubya Master debaterbdubya Master debaterbdubya Master debater
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trish View Post
I find the info at your link most persuasive as it is first person comments from the judge involved. Thanks to you and Mike for posting them.

I stand corrected. I will say that both your link and Mike's are relatively new articles - 4/18. The info I've read before this was dated much earlier. Years earlier to be specific. In fact, one of the pieces I had read is referenced in the article to which Mike linked and is dated 2011. That was not the only source of my opinion. None of that matters now as the judge has definitively quashed that area of speculation. There is, however a lot of time between 2011 and 2018.
What I presented as fact was not slander. I believed, based on several sources, what I said was true. Now that I have read the judge's comments, I no longer have that opinion, nor will I be presenting the claims as truth.

Thanks for the new info. I appreciate it.

Thanks to you too, Mike.
Good on you for admitting it. My statement could have been taken as accusing you personally of a willful lie, and for that lack of clarity, I apologize.

But I'd also like to note that my comment addressed the claim, not the person repeating it. Somebody came up with it and introduced it to the echo chamber; repeating a slander may or may not constitute slander, but the original claim can fairly be called slanderous, particularly since the legal definition covers allegations which the speaker knew or should have known were false. The original claim is both slanderous and libelous.

That said, I spent a few minutes trying to guess where you got the idea. Mainly what I found was a lot of right-wing bloggers and Fox News characters trying to link Mueller to the case in question with a lot of vague, ominous suggestions and links to "supporting" articles that don't actually provide any support (particularly the 2011 article you mention above), and then flat-out slanderous assertions from Dershowitz, Limbaugh and Hannity. I'm curious to know if you had some other source.

Anyhow, let's take this sidebar back to the main thread topic - Manafort's revoked bail. You seem to be saying that Mueller doesn't give a tinker's damn about any crimes he uncovers, he just wants to nail Trump; that he's willing to use unethical or criminal means to do it; and that Manafort is really being victimized here by Mueller. (Obviously these are summaries of what you've posted; if you don't feel they're fair, please clarify). Does the correction of the record on the evidence-withholding case affect those opinions?
__________________
This is what happens when spray tan crosses the blood-brain barrier."

-unidentified friend of mine
Reply With Quote

  #20  
Old 06-20-2018, 03:40 PM
Trish's Avatar
Trish Trish is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 21,895
Reputation: 4221
Trish Master debaterTrish Master debaterTrish Master debaterTrish Master debaterTrish Master debaterTrish Master debaterTrish Master debaterTrish Master debaterTrish Master debaterTrish Master debaterTrish Master debater
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bdubya View Post
Good on you for admitting it. My statement could have been taken as accusing you personally of a willful lie, and for that lack of clarity, I apologize.

But I'd also like to note that my comment addressed the claim, not the person repeating it. Somebody came up with it and introduced it to the echo chamber; repeating a slander may or may not constitute slander, but the original claim can fairly be called slanderous, particularly since the legal definition covers allegations which the speaker knew or should have known were false. The original claim is both slanderous and libelous.

That said, I spent a few minutes trying to guess where you got the idea. Mainly what I found was a lot of right-wing bloggers and Fox News characters trying to link Mueller to the case in question with a lot of vague, ominous suggestions and links to "supporting" articles that don't actually provide any support (particularly the 2011 article you mention above), and then flat-out slanderous assertions from Dershowitz, Limbaugh and Hannity. I'm curious to know if you had some other source.

Anyhow, let's take this sidebar back to the main thread topic - Manafort's revoked bail. You seem to be saying that Mueller doesn't give a tinker's damn about any crimes he uncovers, he just wants to nail Trump; that he's willing to use unethical or criminal means to do it; and that Manafort is really being victimized here by Mueller. (Obviously these are summaries of what you've posted; if you don't feel they're fair, please clarify). Does the correction of the record on the evidence-withholding case affect those opinions?
I always admit when I'm wrong. Happens way too often for me to belive I'm infallible. My feet are indeed made of clay.

I don't remember all that I've read re Mueller and this now discredited claim. I do know that they were not new articles but were several years old. I don't believe any of the info came from FOX and certainly not Hannity. But it's immaterial now, as I have been afforded the judge's comments which I accept as factual and true.

I don't think Manafort is being victimized, but I do think he is as much a tool for Mueller as he is an accused. I don't think Mueller's main goal is conviction/punishment for Manafort no matter what his alleged crimes. I think Mueller's main goal is to use Manafort as a hammer against Trump and if he gets a conviction or guilty plea from Manafort in the process all the better. There are people on Mueller's team who have used unethical means to get convictions. Will Mueller do so or go along with those of his team? I don't know. But the stakes are high here. Many Americans will never accept that Trump is not guilty of collusion with Russia or obstruction. This mess has the country so stirred up its pathetic. If it was Russia's objective to screen our election and political processes they've won the Super Bowl.
__________________
Blue Dog Democrat

"Since when did Democrats become so judgmental and intolerant?" C. Paglia

“When I look at the political situation now, all I really see is that the Democrats are against the Republicans, the Republicans are against the Democrats, and no one’s really for America.” S. Barclay

"I’m remaining a registered Democrat because I still hope for the reform of my party" C. Paglia

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." Edmund Burke
Reply With Quote

Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 09:58 PM.

...


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Copyright © 2006-2016 CrowdGather |  About Democracy Forums |  Advertisers | Investors | Legal | Contact