Jussie Smullett hoax

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

If the Special Counsel did not conclude that Trump committed a crime, then there could not be an indictment. The matter was thoroughly investigated. There was no crime found.
Barr reported this “the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with Russia in its efforts to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election”
End of matter. Nothing more need, nor should, be said. There is no need to "exonerate" someone for what has not been concluded to be a crime. And the DOJ concluded that there was not sufficient evidence to prosecute for a crime. The DOJ's conclusion was part of the whole process of the investigation. Therefor, part of the final report.

What we currently know about the Mueller report is as conclusive as what we know about Benghazi and the email investigation.
Lock him up

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

What we currently know about the Mueller report is as conclusive as what we know about Benghazi and the email investigation.
Lock him up

Pete, do you think Smullett staged this?

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Pete, do you think Smullett staged this?

Waiting for due process to take place

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Waiting for due process to take place

It did take place, it's done. So what do you think happened?

We get it, you don't want to answer. because if you say he staged it (which he obviously did), you go against the narrative, and liberals can't do that. If you say you don't think he staged it, you know you look stupid.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

It did take place, it's done. So what do you think happened?

We get it, you don't want to answer. because if you say he staged it (which he obviously did), you go against the narrative, and liberals can't do that. If you say you don't think he staged it, you know you look stupid.

I don't see a conviction, or even a trial and right now Smollet is doing a Trump imitation in the media, proclaiming his innocence, pretty comical that you find that upsetting and think I should prejudge him and he should be hung without due process.
As you said, and I quote: "HOW MANY TIMES do these morons have to end up with egg on their faces, before they just wait for investigations to take place?"

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

I don't see a conviction, or even a trial and right now Smollet is doing a Trump imitation in the media, proclaiming his innocence, pretty comical that you find that upsetting and think I should prejudge him and he should be hung without due process.
As you said, and I quote: "HOW MANY TIMES do these morons have to end up with egg on their faces, before they just wait for investigations to take place?"

You didn't answer the question I asked.

Do you think he staged the attack? The answer is yes or no.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

You didn't answer the question I asked.

Do you think he staged the attack? The answer is yes or no.

I don't know what happened, I have seen zero evidence and only heard hearsay, somehow you have now tried him and found him guilty, all by yourself.
What court did you do this in?
Or did you do this with the assistance of Faux and Judge Carlson?
Or did I miss this elsewhere in the news?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

What we currently know about the Mueller report is as conclusive as what we know about Benghazi and the email investigation.
Lock him up

Even if they can prove he colluded (which they can't), there is question about whether or not that's even a crime.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

What we currently know about the Mueller report is as conclusive as what we know about Benghazi and the email investigation.
Lock him up

I don't know WTF you're trying to say here. It is often dizzying trying to follow your trains of thought. Your brain seems to be wired differently than usual humans. Perhaps you are a superior form of life.

As far as I know, there were no special counsels appointed to investigate Benghazi or Hillary's emails. Nonetheless, incorporating your whataboutisms (it seems that you and wdmso are constantly allowed whataboutisms but others of us are chided against doing so) are you saying that either both Trump and Hillary should be locked up, or that neither of them should?

Could you please clarify?

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

As far as I know, there were no special counsels appointed to investigate Benghazi or Hillary's emails.
Investigations only count if you employ a special counsel?Nonetheless, incorporating your whataboutisms (it seems that you and wdmso are constantly allowed whataboutisms but others of us are chided against doing so) are you saying that either both Trump and Hillary should be locked up, or that neither of them should?

Could you please clarify?

Pretty simple, perhaps both should be locked up using Trump's logic

Both Benghazi and the email issue were investigated and no indictments issued
Never stopped the opposition from calling: Lock them up

What is the difference between those investigations and this one, other than that the same people are now on the opposite sides?

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Pretty simple, perhaps both should be locked up using Trump's logic

Both Benghazi and the email issue were investigated and no indictments issued
Never stopped the opposition from calling: Lock them up

What is the difference between those investigations and this one, other than that the same people are now on the opposite sides?

Whether they are or not, special counsels are not ostensibly politically driven. Congressional investigations are. That's why, as in Benghazi, the opinions of what was "found" were quite contrary. And Hillary's failure in Benghazi was not a crime, nor treason, nor conspiracy, but just plain incompetence. Incompetence is not an indictable offense. And neither investigation, Benghazi nor the emails, required under oath interviews subject to perjury traps. The lenience given to Hillary and those around her in the email investigation was not afforded in Mueller's investigation. People like Flynn and Papadopoulos were convicted of silly process crimes that Hillary's people were spared from being subjected to. In the email investigation there was no attempt to squeeze witnesses into "singing" and "composing" or facing criminal charges or worse convictions .

Comparing the thoroughness, intensity and strictness of Mueller's investigation to the laxity of the email scandal "investigation" is a farce.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Whether they are or not, special counsels are not ostensibly politically driven. Congressional investigations are. That's why, as in Benghazi, the opinions of what was "found" were quite contrary. And Hillary's failure in Benghazi was not a crime, nor treason, nor conspiracy, but just plain incompetence. Incompetence is not an indictable offense. And neither investigation, Benghazi nor the emails, required under oath interviews subject to perjury traps. The lenience given to Hillary and those around her in the email investigation was not afforded in Mueller's investigation. People like Flynn and Papadopoulos were convicted of silly process crimes that Hillary's people were spared from being subjected to. In the email investigation there was no attempt to squeeze witnesses into "singing" and "composing" or facing criminal charges or worse convictions .

Comparing the thoroughness, intensity and strictness of Mueller's investigation to the laxity of the email scandal "investigation" is a farce.

Benghazi was investigated by a Republican Congress for a cost of 7 million and yielded a bunch of footstomping, it did later downstream result in Comey's announcement during the campaign of continuing investigation into her emails. Some here would claim this was an FBI plot to somehow aid her campaign.
Perhaps you feel that the rule of law only applies in some cases and white lies don't count, since they didn't hurt anyone. Flynn and Papadopulos both plead guilty, didn't they?
Perhaps the danger of leaking emails pales in comparison to Russian interference in our elections and therefor needed a different level of investigation in comparison to Benghazi.
Mueller is likely the most qualified and competent investigator in this country.
I want to see his report, not the parsed comments of a political appointee.