BS: Two sets of rules?

Subject: BS: Two sets of rules?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 27 Apr 18 - 10:20 AM

IMO, if nothing else, this will have a major effect on the 2018 election. The number of Democrats who will come out in protest over Trump's policies pales in comparison with the number of Republicans and Independents who will see Trump as being more accountable than the Democrats have been.
Please read the article before commenting on it: You may well NOT agree with it, but the majority of the US does NOT like the idea of having politicians "above the law" - and this means ALL politicians, not just Trump. But the Republicans may well get an unexpected boost from this.


"What is going on?

Mueller has searched far and wide for wrongdoing but so far has found little. Meanwhile, there is plenty of other wrongdoing already found, but no one seems to be looking at it.

Flynn, Cohen and other Trump aides are considered small enough fry to go after. Clinton, Comey, McCabe and others seem big enough fry to leave alone.

No one thought Hillary Clinton would blow the election. Top Obama officials at the FBI, DOJ, intelligence agencies and National Security Council believed in 2015-2016 that they could ignore laws with impunity since a protective Clinton administration would soon be in power.

Politics have infected these investigations. Trump was seen as a threat to the status quo, and FBI and DOJ lawbreakers were seen as custodians of it.

The more Mueller searches for hypothetical lawbreaking, the more he is inadvertently underscoring that actual lawbreakers must be subject to the same standard of justice. Ironically, Mueller’s investigation has reminded America that it is past time to call Comey, McCabe, and a host of Obama-era DOJ and FBI officials to account.

For over a year, we have had two standards of legality when there can only be one.

A reckoning is near."

https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/04/26/hanson-the-country-is-about-to-witness-an-investigatory-train-wreck/

Subject: RE: BS: Two sets of rules?
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 27 Apr 18 - 08:07 PM

Mueller has searched far and wide for wrongdoing but so far has found little. In your opinion.

Clinton, Comey, McCabe and others seem big enough fry to leave alone. or, they did nothing wrong. Again, in your opinion.

A conservative opinion piece from a newspaper that demands we lower our ad blocks to read it. Nope. Not gonna do it.

Subject: RE: BS: Two sets of rules?
From: meself
Date: 27 Apr 18 - 08:10 PM

" ... so far has found little." How does this person know what Mueller has found or not found?

Subject: RE: BS: Two sets of rules?
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 27 Apr 18 - 08:24 PM

We see a number of indictments and plea agreements, substantial proof that Mueller is indeed finding things.

Subject: RE: BS: Two sets of rules?
From: Joe Offer
Date: 27 Apr 18 - 08:39 PM

Hmmm. The newspaper is the San Jose Mercury-News, which is certainly reputable. The author, Victor Davis Hanson, is a syndicated columnist and California almond grower. No particular red flags about Hanson, although no doubt he's conservative.

But I find it interesting to see the vehemence with which Republicans, usually tagged the law-and-order party, are driven to attack law enforcement. I think their emphasis on law-and-order means asserting the authority and power of the Republican Party, not actually enforcing the law.

I worked for the U.S. Government for about 30 years, through a variety of administrations. It always seemed to me that the Democrats were always very careful to follow the rule of law, even following laws they didn't like. I think that's how Barack Obama ended up deporting five million immigrants.

The Republicans like to see the law followed, too - when the Democrats are in power and especially when the law is sticking it to the Democrats. But when the Republicans are in power, they can develop serious disdain for law enforcement agencies. We've seen Trump make disparaging statements about every court and law enforcement agency he encounters. Somehow, Trump and his minions are personally insulted by law enforcement officers who are just doing their best to do thorough investigations. Mueller has been bending over backwards to remain apolitical - but the Trump administration sees every question raised as an unpatriotic attack on the government.

We haven't seen an administration fight law enforcement so hard, since Nixon. That's gotta tell ya something, no?

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Two sets of rules?
From: Rapparee
Date: 27 Apr 18 - 09:21 PM

If there is proof against Clinton (either), Trump, or anyone else present it to a Grand Jury and see if an indictment results. If indicted, a trial should follow. If guilty, punishment; if not guilty, forget it.

Subject: RE: BS: Two sets of rules?
From: meself
Date: 27 Apr 18 - 09:33 PM

If Mueller finds "little", he will no doubt make a report to that effect. And that will be that. It's trump and his supporters who keep heaping fuel on the media fire.

Subject: RE: BS: Two sets of rules?
From: Joe Offer
Date: 27 Apr 18 - 09:41 PM

It's Mueller's JOB to investigate things to the nth degree. I don't think the Republicans understand that.
And hey, what's this about Ryan sacking the Jesuit priest who was chaplain to the House of Representatives? The guy's offense, was to pray that the tax bill might take the Little People into consideration.
Republicans get nervous, when people start talking about right and wrong.
-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Two sets of rules?
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 27 Apr 18 - 11:16 PM

The Mercury is/may be reputable, but the first post was quite confrontational, demanding people read the story at his link before responding. He needed to find another publisher that wasn't behind a paywall to begin to make that demand of thread participants.

Subject: RE: BS: Two sets of rules?
From: Donuel
Date: 28 Apr 18 - 11:10 AM

The only things made public by Mueller are indictments, search warrants and subpoenas.

Anything else reported are speculations and spin.

There is wisdom that Justice is blind while holding the scales.

Subject: RE: BS: Two sets of rules?
From: Iains
Date: 28 Apr 18 - 04:14 PM

"There is wisdom that Justice is blind while holding the scales."
and went on her hols, while the search for novichock was on!

Subject: RE: BS: Two sets of rules?
From: Raedwulf
Date: 28 Apr 18 - 04:26 PM

Bruce is always confrontational, Acme. He is, frankly, a republican gun nut, and he is not interested in any point of view except his own, nor in any facts except those that agree with his very narrow viewpoint.

Beyond that, I can only applaud Joe's post of 08:39. And yes, I'm a Yook rather than a Yank. Bruce will instantly dismiss me as an alien not entitled to have an opinion, I'm sure...

Subject: RE: BS: Two sets of rules?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 30 Apr 18 - 08:29 AM

Raedwulf,

You state "He is, frankly, a republican gun nut, and he is not interested in any point of view except his own, nor in any facts except those that agree with his very narrow viewpoint."

1. Yes, I am right of center- By MY standards, most of Mudcat appear to be to the Left of Pol Pot.

2. Gun nut? Can I call you an Anti-Gun nut, willing to sacrifice lives for a political point? I am in favor of enforceable, effective laws- I have yet to see any proposed here.

3." he is not interested in any point of view except his own,"- I have read the posts of those who disagree with me, and addressed what I thought of them. I comment on them- NOT JUST ATTACK THEM FOR HAVING MADE THOSE COMMENTS. THAT is more than MOST here have bothered to do.

4. "nor in any facts except those that agree with his very narrow viewpoint." - I will acknowledge facts- but if you state opinion, without support ( or refuse to discuss your support), demanding that I accept YOUR comments as factual without even addressing MY comments, much less the reasons I state for believing those statements, YOU are the one with the narrow viewpoint.

5. "Bruce will instantly dismiss me as an alien not entitled to have an opinion, I'm sure.."

Wrong again. Everyone is entitled to and opinion- But YOU are not entitled to state what I am interested in, or denigrate my opinion just because you do not agree with me and pronounce judgement on ME unless you are willing to have the same done to you.



Acme,
" first post was quite confrontational, demanding people read the story at his link before responding. He needed to find another publisher that wasn't behind a paywall to begin to make that demand of thread participants. "

Demanding the subsequent posters read the initial post SHOULD be a requirement of ALL THREADS.

There WAS no firewall when I posted the link- a popup, which when declined, let one read the article in it's entirety. I have been criticized here because I DID post the entire article, being told to post the link and MY comments- NOW, when I do that, you criticize THAT.

Typical Liberal discussion tactics. No facts, just personal attacks.

Subject: RE: BS: Two sets of rules?
From: Donuel
Date: 30 Apr 18 - 09:39 AM

Aren't all aliens not entitled to have an opinion, job, housing, health care or education according to the leader of the free world?

Subject: RE: BS: Two sets of rules?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 30 Apr 18 - 09:58 AM

Acme,

If you consider that "Please read the article before commenting on it: " is demanding, you need to review your own posts.

I REQUESTED:


YOU stated "demanding people read the story at his link before responding. "



I think you are not justified in your comment.

Subject: RE: BS: Two sets of rules?
From: Raedwulf
Date: 01 May 18 - 07:31 PM

Bruce - I OPINE; not state (mostly). Try asking yourself why someone has / so many have such a negative view of you. Very many of those who post or lurk here will see more truth in my OPINION of you than they will in your spamming thread after thread insisting that you are right. Take Guns in America, 218 posts as at time of writing this. How many of 'em are yours? I really can't be bothered to try counting them, though it looks like over 50%. But I'll tell you this - there are threads that I will either avoid, if I've come late to it, or drop out of very quickly because there is simply no point, because there is no discussion happening. Just someone with their fingers in their ears yelling their heads off. You are not the only active poster here who does that, but you very definitely are one of them.

And judge me however you want; it bothers me not in the slightest (you, however, seem to feel the need to defensively itemise your objections...). But I have far more evidence on Mudcat of your attitudes and of what you are interested in than you have of mine. So I'm rather likely to be closer to accurate, wouldn't you say?

Mind you, why I'm bothering to point this out to Acme, who has been here longer than either of us, so ought to be familiar with you by now!! ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Two sets of rules?
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 02 May 18 - 07:58 AM

"There is wisdom that Justice is blind while holding the scales.
In the US at least. In the UK Justice is a woman who needs no blindfold to decide impartially. Images here

Subject: RE: BS: Two sets of rules?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 02 May 18 - 08:11 AM

Raedwulf,

I have read your reply, and note your opinion.

Yet I also note you have not made any reply to MY comments- just to your opinion of me. Isn't this exactly what I have complained about?

3." he is not interested in any point of view except his own,"- I have read the posts of those who disagree with me, and addressed what I thought of them. I comment on them- NOT JUST ATTACK THEM FOR HAVING MADE THOSE COMMENTS. THAT is more than MOST here have bothered to do.


IMCO, you may be in the majority here, but tyranny of the majority is still tyranny.

Subject: RE: BS: Two sets of rules?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 02 May 18 - 08:15 AM

Raedwulf,

In addition, your post of 28 Apr 18 - 04:26 PM does not seem to address the point of this thread. Did you even have an opinion on the topic ( I see none posted on this thread), or did you just come here to attack me?

As the IP, I think I have the right to ask this. Not expecting a reasonable reply, though.

Subject: RE: BS: Two sets of rules?
From: Donuel
Date: 02 May 18 - 05:53 PM

wrong or right I admire bruce's passion.

Subject: RE: BS: Two sets of rules?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 02 May 18 - 05:57 PM

SOME of us care more about justice and lives than about being politically correct and going along with the majority.