Actually it doesn’t say the opposite. It is just being reported as saying something it doesn’t actually say.
M
What have I changed, now???
M
“His report is the LEAST partisan report being compiled and no one in Washington disputes that.”
You even used caps. LOL.
I still say that!
AGAIN, what have I changed?
M
You sure seem to have spent the last 24+hours disputing the IG’s conclusion, unless I am misunderstanding your posts.
So, do you agree that the IG did not find any evidence of political bias or improper consideration actually impacting the investigation?
A simple yes or no will do.
You ARE misunderstanding my posts.
I don’t dispute the IG. I dispute the incorrect press reports of what the IG said.
They are saying that the IG said there was no bias OR that the bias didn’t affect their work. He says NO SUCH THING. He says only that he couldn’t find the documentary evidence to prove they acted improperly.
He also said their obvious bias taints everything they did and casts doubt on what they did.
“Nonetheless, these messages cast a cloud over the FBI’s handling of the Midyear investigation and the investigation’s credibility.”
M
As a person who was just screaming out of the top of their lungs in another thread about “innocent until proven guilty” Then you have the nerve to assert that a claim they couldn’t find any evidence and then at the same time asserting that doesn’t mean they didn’t do as such and do so and are biased.
Holy ■■■■, you’ve really stepped all over yourself this time. Pick a side of an argument and stop being a hypocrite.
1 Like
What the hell are you talking about???
M
So you are going to go with the ignorant game?
Yeah you took both sides of the coin. Paul is innocent until proven guilty, the FBIis the opposite despite not being able to find any evidence.
Now go ahead and claim that isn’t what you said. Go ahead, I’ll be here waiting to hear both yours and your interpretation of the IG’s hyprocrisy.
Err, NO ONE is putting thr FBI guys IN JAIL without a trial. You can have your opinion of Paul Manafort and I can have my opinion of the FBI guys, but the only one having his civil rights violated is Manafort.
The FBI guys are ALSO presumed to be innocent of any crimes by the law until they go to trial and therefore should NOT be in a jail cell until they should be proven guilty of a crime. That DOES NOT mean I cannot believe them to be guilty of acting badly or even criminally. You are ALSO free to believe that Manafort is guilty but the LAW cannot make that presumption.
Are we CLEAR???
M
No the haven’t but that is only because no one in our government agrees with your assessment. Its the same reason Hillary hasn’t been indicted yet and never well be.
Manafort was given the opportunity to not be in jail pending his trial, then he went and committed another alleged offense. About how many times and how many alleged crimes does he need to commit before you will change your opinion?
I noticed you did’t address my hypothetical about the murder on camera. To be clear the constitution is quite clear that the commission of another crime while on bail revokes your right to bail again. This isn’t arguable or debatable, it has been set in case law and precedent as old as the constitution is. Safiel and JohnHwk can provide all the citations you need.
You DEEPLY miss the point. No one is TRYING to put them in jail, so comparing them to someone that people ARE putting in jail is just dumb. You are FREE to believe what you want to about the guilt or innocence of anyone you want to. SO AM I.
But that doesn’t have anything to do with what the LAW must do, which is presume innocence until proven guilty.
ALLEGED offense. Yet he is being jailed for something that THE LAW at this points presumes he is innocent of.
WHY? Is he NOW a flight risk or a danger to others??? That’s why he was given bail - because he was NOT a flight risk or a danger to others, NOT because a prosecutor thought he committed an alleged offense. That all prosecutors DO. So what? Doesn’t make him GUILTY by the law.
My OPINION of his guilt or innocence of his alleged crimes is immaterial. My BELIEF that he is NOT a flight risk or a danger to others is VERY, VERY FIRM and as such he does NOT belong in a jail today anymore than he did yesterday.
I see no hypothetical.
But I’m STILL going with Alan Dershowitz over Saf OR Johnhawk. Call me crazy that way.
M
What you seem to be failing to understand is after the initial bail is set it isn’t about flight risk it is about the risk of additional crimes being committed that determines risk.
I presented a hypothetical situation in a previous post about an alleged murderer that was captured on film killing a person. In that that situation is bail warranted? Lets say it is. Judge releases suspect on bail and subsequently said bailee kills the only witness to the crime and it too is caught on tape. Shall we release him again simply because his first offense hasn’t gone to trial.
Its very much apparently you have neither a concept of the bail system nor the ability to recognize situations where exceptions have always been made in the court system. Just because you don’t think he is flight risk or a danger is immaterial, the judge in the case thinks so and he/she is covered under the law for making such determination. Just cause you don’t like it doesn’t make it unlawful or uncontistitutional.
Bottom line case law has covered his thousands, maybe even tens or even hundred of thousands of times. He will stay in prison until trial and justifiably so. Save yourself from being just plain wrong period and let it be. If manafort is guilty, he will be sentenced appropriately minus time servered, if he isn’t then he will walk free. There is no need to excuse his behavior to this point. Unless you want to get into a disagreement about how much the government owes inmates subsequently set free based on exculpatory evidence and how much we owe them?
So, YOU are saying that the judge is infallible? That judges NEVER get things wrong? That NO ONE has ever had the government wrongly take away their civil rights?
What FANTASY LAND do you live in because it’s SWELL!!
I gotta go there.
M
I don’t recall ever making that argument. I believe that is called a strawman.
I didn’t say you did. I’m ASKING you these questions. Are these your beliefs?
M
Is a judge infallible? Nope. But then again neither are juries by peers. We as a society go by the best we can. When it comes to bail its always been the case to defer to a judges judgement to the situation. It would seem you aren’t okay with them doing so in this situation. I’m betting that isn’t the case in others.
You lose your bet.
M
Present said situation.
That’s gotta kill Trump Republicans and Fox Republicans.
Which is the same group of people.
