- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Another Obama, Clinton donor joins Mueller's legal team
Posted on 9/17/17 at 6:08 am
Posted on 9/17/17 at 6:08 am
I would love to see Dems defend this...the whole investigation is nothing more than a political witch hunt and needs to be disbanded.
I'm sure a Clinton donor is 100% impartial to investigating Trump's campaign!
I'm sure a Clinton donor is 100% impartial to investigating Trump's campaign!
quote:
The newest lawyer to join Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into possible Trump campaign team collusion with Russia gained notoriety for her conduct in defending former President Obama's immigration orders, Politico reported Saturday.
Besides her work for Obama, Kyle Freeny, now the 16th member of Mueller’s legal team, Federal Election Commission records show she donated in each of the past three presidential elections to Democratic nominees, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.
Freeny and her colleagues came under judicial fire while defending a lawsuit in which Texas and 25 other states contested Obama’s executive order in 2014 on immigration. The federal judge hearing the case, U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen, blasted Freeny and her colleagues for misleading him when the litigation began by indicating that none of the changes Obama had ordered had taken effect. In actuality, one major change, to issue longer work permits, had already begun.
9
Posted on 9/17/17 at 6:40 am to The Pirate King
quote:1. Being a donor to some party or candidate doesn't render one incapable of competently doing one's job or signal that one is out for blood against members of other parties. And FWIW, Trump and most of his senior advisors have also donated to top democrats.
I'm sure a Clinton donor is 100% impartial to investigating Trump's campaign!
2. Where is it written that investigators and prosecutors have to be 100% unbiased in the conduct of an investigation. They often harbor [great] suspicion about the subjects of their investigations (obviously).
quote:Nah. Nothing to hide, nothing to fear. The investigation is churning along at a journeyman's pace in the background. It's not much of a political liability as long as nothing turns up.
the whole investigation is nothing more than a political witch hunt and needs to be disbanded.
This post was edited on 9/17/17 at 6:43 am
Posted on 9/17/17 at 6:47 am to Navytiger74
quote:
1. Being a donor to some party or candidate doesn't render one incapable of competently doing one's job or signal that one is out for blood against members of other parties. And FWIW, Trump and most of his senior advisors have also donated to top democrats.
2. Where is it written that investigators and prosecutors have to be 100% unbiased in the conduct of an investigation. They often harbor [great] suspicion about the subjects of their investigations (obviously).
what a load of fricking horse shite
If the situation were reversed (and for God damned sure t NEVER will be), the squealing from every single corner of the establishment would be deafening.
This is like a fricking Maoist show trial.
Posted on 9/17/17 at 6:49 am to Navytiger74
quote:
Nah. Nothing to hide, nothing to fear. The investigation is churning along at a journeyman's pace in the background. It's not much of a political liability as long as nothing turns up.
This sounds like a "this is a bullshite investigation but since I don't like Trump I have to choose my words carefully so I don't appear to actually give him any credit" type statement.
Posted on 9/17/17 at 6:51 am to gthog61
quote:What do you mean if the situation were reversed? Five of the last six administrations have been subject to special counsels and serious criminal probes. No one is persecuting your god-emperor. There are serious matters to look into to here. Spare me the drama.
what a load of fricking horse shite
If the situation were reversed (and for God damned sure t NEVER will be), the squealing from every single corner of the establishment would be deafening.
This is like a fricking Maoist show trial.
Posted on 9/17/17 at 6:52 am to Homesick Tiger
quote:What? That doesn't make sense. Give who credit? Trump?
This sounds like a "this is a bullshite investigation but since I don't like Trump I have to choose my words carefully so I don't appear to actually give him any credit" type statement.
Posted on 9/17/17 at 7:02 am to Navytiger74
quote:
What?
My point, you haven't given Trump any credit for anything positive since day one and rather admit that he might be right about something you make a weasley statement about the investigation insinuating if it takes what, 4-5 years to come up with some kind of criminal crumb that you're okay with that.
i.e., costs and optics be damned as long as the investigation is damning to Trump, no matter if he's innocent or not.
Posted on 9/17/17 at 7:09 am to Navytiger74
quote:
No one is persecuting . . .
Posted on 9/17/17 at 7:12 am to Homesick Tiger
quote:Is this thread about Trump's political and policy accomplishments (or lack thereof) or about the propriety of the investigation and the way it's being conducted? I don't recall any occasion in this thread to "give Trump credit" or take it away. It wasn't the subject of the OP.
My point, you haven't given Trump any credit for anything positive since day one and rather admit that he might be right about something you make a weasley statement about the investigation
Posted on 9/17/17 at 7:15 am to Navytiger74
quote:You claimed no one is persecuting him, which is patently false.
I don't recall any occasion in this thread to "give Trump credit" or take it away.
Posted on 9/17/17 at 7:21 am to NC_Tigah
quote:It's patently true. Maybe people would regard him better if didn't have a tendency to publicly humiliate his senior staff and his party's congressional leadership. Maybe he'd get more respect if he stopped whining and twitter-fighting and get some real shite done.
You claimed no one is persecuting him, which is patently false.
Because being president is hard--obviously more difficult than he thought. But those challenges and the fact that he's held to account for the stupid things he says and does, taken together, don't amount to persecution.
Posted on 9/17/17 at 7:24 am to Navytiger74
quote:
Being a donor to some party or candidate doesn't render one incapable of competently doing one's job or signal that one is out for blood against members of other parties.
I figured you would show up. You're saying that you don't think a 20-year democrat donor, who recently donated to the opposing losing campaign (and defended Obama's immigration policies vehemently/unethically in a court of law) would have any sort of bias when investigating this case? Are you serious or just trolling again?
I mean it's not shocking given that Mueller himself should have recused himself months ago for obvious conflict of interest, but how can you defend this? Cmon man
This post was edited on 9/17/17 at 7:25 am
Posted on 9/17/17 at 7:27 am to Navytiger74
quote:
Is this thread about Trump's political and policy accomplishments (or lack thereof) or about the propriety of the investigation and the way it's being conducted? I don't recall any occasion in this thread to "give Trump credit" or take it away. It wasn't the subject of the OP.
His post was a nice way of saying that you're an assclown hack who can't see past his hatred of Trump to be impartial in any way, notably when you defend behavior like this.
Posted on 9/17/17 at 7:32 am to The Pirate King
quote:I'm saying prior associations and activities aren't conclusive evidence of bias. And if you paid just a bit more attention to detail, I'm also saying that there isn't necessarily anything fatally disqualifying about investigators harboring some suspicions about the subjects of their investigations. Detectives, investigators, and prosecutors generally do harbor such suspicions.
I figured you would show up. You're saying that you don't think a 20-year democrat donor, who recently donated to the opposing losing campaign (and defended Obama's immigration policies vehemently/unethically in a court of law) would have any sort of bias when investigating this case? Are you serious or just trolling again?
Congrats on predicting that I'd show. And you'll know when I'm trolling, turbo. Try to take your emotions out of these discussions in the future.
Posted on 9/17/17 at 7:32 am to The Pirate King
quote:There's that emotion.
His post was a nice way of saying that you're an assclown hack who can't see past his hatred of Trump to be impartial in any way, notably when you defend behavior like this.
What a loser.
Posted on 9/17/17 at 7:40 am to Navytiger74
quote:What you meant to say is maybe people (the media) wouldn't persecute him if . . . {insert issue here}quote:It's patently true. Maybe people would regard him better if didn't have a tendency . .
You claimed no one is persecuting him, which is patently false.
.
Which is, of course, to say he's being persecuted.
Posted on 9/17/17 at 7:43 am to Navytiger74
quote:
I'm also saying that there isn't necessarily anything fatally disqualifying about investigators harboring some suspicions about the subjects of their investigations.
suspicions huh? That's an interesting way to sugarcoat it. She has a documented, vested interest and an axe to grind against Trump, his campaign, and anything that doesn't further the democrat agenda. That's a little more than believing little Johnny shoplifted a pack of gum or not believing a murder suspect's story.
It is possible to discuss politics passionately while still bringing facts to the table. But I do appreciate your sudden worry for emotional responses, given all of the fear-mongering hyperbole that you and your ilk spouted during the campaign, election, inauguration, and presidency.
This post was edited on 9/17/17 at 7:43 am
Posted on 9/17/17 at 7:49 am to The Pirate King
quote:In a situation where Mueller's friend, Comey, appears to have (a) lied under oath, (b) willingly participated in a political cover-up, (c) attempted to influence an election, (d) duplicitously maneuvered/leaked to incite a special council appointment, Mueller looks very very bad in undertaking these partisan appointments
a 20-year democrat donor, who recently donated to the opposing losing campaign (and defended Obama's immigration policies vehemently/unethically in a court of law)
Posted on 9/17/17 at 7:52 am to Navytiger74
quote:
Where is it written that investigators and prosecutors have to be 100% unbiased in the conduct of an investigation
If it's never been written previously then allow me to write it now. They have to be 100% unbiased when conducting an investigation that may alter the lives of the people they're investigating.
Posted on 9/17/17 at 7:56 am to The Pirate King
Mueller is compromised.By the Clinton's,the Bush's,the Neo-Cons,etc...
They don't like Trump because he's not compromised.
This is why you don't want someone in the Oval Office that's compromised.
They don't like that he's bucking the system.He questions 9/11.He's for the "Devolution of Power".That's dangerous in Washington.
They don't like Trump because he's not compromised.
This is why you don't want someone in the Oval Office that's compromised.
They don't like that he's bucking the system.He questions 9/11.He's for the "Devolution of Power".That's dangerous in Washington.
Page 1 of 4
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News