Jussie Smullett hoax

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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?"

[Sea Dangles]

PeteF. Is dizzy from chasing his tail.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[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.

[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 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?

[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.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

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?

You’ve seen zero evidence??

he said it was white guys, two black guys confessed

the black guys we’re friends of his, were seen in surveillance cameras as the only human beings in the area at the time of the attack

they had receipts for rope and bleach, used in the attack

smollet has spoken to them
just before, and just after the attack, on his phone

smollett refuses to turn over his phone, and when he did, it had been altered

we also know that the grand jury indicted on 16 felonies, and that smolletts family has connections with the obamas

you knew none of this? You’re a liar. you a brain dead thoughtless zombie, who can’t bring himself to admit what everybratuonal person knows, that he staged this. your brain can’t let you admit this, because in your mind, i guess, that’s saying all liberals are bad and all conservatives are good.

He staged this. your beliefs don’t allow you to admit the obvious. time for
new beliefs when you are trapped by such obvious truth.

Protect the narrative at all costs.

You humiliated yourself here.

all by myself? how about what the cops have said, and wht the grand jury did, and the fact that his two black friends confessed to a crime he said was carried out by white trump
supporters?

pathetic.


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Paul S, do you think he staged this?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[TheSpecialist]

Jim he must not watch tv or read the news

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

You’ve seen zero evidence??

he said it was white guys, two black guys confessed

the black guys we’re friends of his, were seen in surveillance cameras as the only human beings in the area at the time of the attack

they had receipts for rope and bleach, used in the attack

smollet has spoken to them
just before, and just after the attack, on his phone

smollett refuses to turn over his phone, and when he did, it had been altered

we also know that the grand jury indicted on 16 felonies, and that smolletts family has connections with the obamas

you knew none of this? You’re a liar. you a brain dead thoughtless zombie, who can’t bring himself to admit what everybratuonal person knows, that he staged this. your brain can’t let you admit this, because in your mind, i guess, that’s saying all liberals are bad and all conservatives are good.

He staged this. your beliefs don’t allow you to admit the obvious. time for
new beliefs when you are trapped by such obvious truth.

Protect the narrative at all costs.

You humiliated yourself here.

all by myself? how about what the cops have said, and wht the grand jury did, and the fact that his two black friends confessed to a crime he said was carried out by white trump
supporters?

pathetic.


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Benghazi was investigated by a Republican Congress for a cost of 7 million and yielded a bunch of footstomping,

Like I said, congressional investigations are politically driven. You wanted to know what the difference was in the investigations. You are demonstrating that. And, since you bring it up, what was yielded was that HRC egregiously mishandled (some would say was grossly negligent [sound familiar] in) the security of the Benghazi post.

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?

The rule of law applied in the Flynn and Papadopoulos cases. Perhaps more harshly than necessary. Those FBI who interviewed Flynn did not think he was lying nor that inaccuracies in his answers were intentional. But, that apparently did not matter. His unintentional or inaccurate statements were used as "lies" in order to coerce him into cooperation. He has yet to be sentenced. But he pretty much was bankrupted (another tactic that the FBI uses to squeeze confessions and cooperation) by legal fees. And no conspiracy, in the end, was found. Great job FBI!

Papadopoulos did intentionally tell a little stinker intending, in his mind, to protect the President. But it was basically not about much, and some believe he was set up. But the FBI must not have thought that his lie was really important. He only got 14 days. Which is probably 14 days more than he deserved for something that was inconsequential.

And neither Flynn's nor Papadopoulos's "crimes" occurred before the investigation, but were a result of FBI tactics during it. What is called a process crime, not a crime that is germane to the reason for the investigation.

On the other hand, Hillary's more dangerous handling of emails was not as harshly and strictly (or not at all) subject to the rule of law.

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.

"Perhaps" and "likely" you, in your brilliant and authoritative dissection, will find fault with his report. I am sure that you will see exactly what you want to see. So far, Mueller hasn't disputed what Barr has said.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

You’ve seen zero evidence??

he said it was white guys, two black guys confessed

the black guys we’re friends of his, were seen in surveillance cameras as the only human beings in the area at the time of the attack

they had receipts for rope and bleach, used in the attack

smollet has spoken to them
just before, and just after the attack, on his phone

smollett refuses to turn over his phone, and when he did, it had been altered

we also know that the grand jury indicted on 16 felonies, and that smolletts family has connections with the obamas

you knew none of this? You’re a liar. you a brain dead thoughtless zombie, who can’t bring himself to admit what everybratuonal person knows, that he staged this. your brain can’t let you admit this, because in your mind, i guess, that’s saying all liberals are bad and all conservatives are good.

He staged this. your beliefs don’t allow you to admit the obvious. time for
new beliefs when you are trapped by such obvious truth.

Protect the narrative at all costs.

You humiliated yourself here.

all by myself? how about what the cops have said, and wht the grand jury did, and the fact that his two black friends confessed to a crime he said was carried out by white trump
supporters?

pathetic.


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

no tv, don't take the paper anymore
NPR isn't fixated on it
I have not made it a point to read anything about it and I would have had to
What you wrote there is far more than I know about this, everybody has to be an expert at something.
I also don't care about this issue, it's largely created in the media and Fox apparently loves it, they certainly have you worried about it.
Have fun with it, I see you have also brought Obama into your narrative, all evil derives from him.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

"Perhaps" and "likely" you, in your brilliant and authoritative dissection, will find fault with his report. I am sure that you will see exactly what you want to see. So far, Mueller hasn't disputed what Barr has said.

Flynn lied to them and the agents asked him if he was sure of his statement.
They gave him the opportunity to correct it. Why he lied is a open question.

Just what have you heard Mueller say, about anything?

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Flynn lied to them and the agents asked him if he was sure of his statement.

Being sure of his statement does not mean he is intentionally lying. You do know the difference between lying and being wrong?

They gave him the opportunity to correct it. Why he lied is a open question.

The FBI investigators didn't think he was lying.

Just what have you heard Mueller say, about anything?

Nothing. That's my point. Mueller jumped in a little while ago to correct what was being said about the investigation. So he has demonstrated that he will correct false impressions or statements about his investigation. So far, no correction or amendment has been made to Barr's synopsis.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

So far, Mueller hasn't disputed what Barr has said.

I think Mueller is prohibited from saying anything about his report unless he's called by Congress.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

I think Mueller is prohibited from saying anything about his report unless he's called by Congress.

Good point. Albeit a minor one in terms of the discussion twixt Pete and Me.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Good point. Albeit a minor one in terms of the discussion twixt Pete and Me.

Well, it did dismiss your entire post.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

I also don't care about this issue, it's largely created in the media and Fox apparently loves it, they certainly have you worried about it.
Have fun with it, I see you have also brought Obama into your narrative, all evil derives from him.

This issue is at the heart of rule of law. Of justice for all. Of equal application of the law. When prosecutors can be persuaded by money, politics, powerful influence, personal prejudice, to subvert the legal process, to give favor to a particular defendant that would not be given to most others, rule of law is replaced by rule of man . . . or of person . . . or of cis, quasi, trans, whatever . . . you get the point. I hope.

And it tickles me that you point out Jim's bringing Obama into this thread when you, as you are wont to do in just about any thread on any subject, bring in Trump and the Russia stuff (and Benghazi) in a thread about the Smullett hoax.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

Well, it did dismiss your entire post.

Either you didn't read my entire post, or you're out of your mind.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

This issue is at the heart of rule of law. Of justice for all. Of equal application of the law. When prosecutors can be persuaded by money, politics, powerful influence, personal prejudice, to subvert the legal process, to give favor to a particular defendant that would not be given to most others, rule of law is replaced by rule of man . . . or of person . . . or of cis, quasi, trans, whatever . . . you get the point. I hope.

And it tickles me that you point out Jim's bringing Obama into this thread when you, as you are wont to do in just about any thread on any subject, bring in Trump and the Russia stuff (and Benghazi) in a thread about the Smullett hoax.

One is an item that history will likely forget, the other is what will make history.
Perhaps you, like Jim, think Smullet is important beyond this moment
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

One is an item that history will likely forget, the other is what will make history.
Perhaps you, like Jim, think Smullet is important beyond this moment
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I think every moment is filled with the infinite range of possibilities that exist in what we refer to as reality. Every moment, for one who is aware and pays attention, contains the answers to all the questions that the human mind can concoct. Every moment is the most basic microcosm of history.

All moments will eventually be forgotten by those who inhabit future moments. That is why every moment is important as an opportunity to discover whatever there is to discover.

If you are waiting for the right moment to begin your search for understanding, you may well remain permanently ignorant.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

no tv, don't take the paper anymore
NPR isn't fixated on it
I have not made it a point to read anything about it and I would have had to
What you wrote there is far more than I know about this, everybody has to be an expert at something.
I also don't care about this issue, it's largely created in the media and Fox apparently loves it, they certainly have you worried about it.
Have fun with it, I see you have also brought Obama into your narrative, all evil derives from him.

interesting pete. So in all things that make Trump look bad, you are remarkably well informed, you know all the facts and truths that paint him in a negative light. you post constantly.

Yet here on an issue that makes a liberal look bad, all of a sudden you can’t comment, because you don’t know enough, you don’t have access to the right information.

pete, you are right in many issues in my opinion. but when your beliefs don’t allow you to admit what every sane person knows what happened here, what does that say about your beliefs?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Sea Dangles]

He is simply being dishonest,NPR has stolen his soul.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles

He is simply being dishonest,NPR has stolen his soul.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

it’s unbelievable....they simply cannot ever say anything that goes against the narrative. Not once, not ever, not on any topic. i’ve never had a dog so blindly and thoughtlessly obedient.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Sea Dangles]

I am trying to help but he pushes away.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles

I am trying to help but he pushes away.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

They're as rabid as Jim Jones' followers. It's stupefying. Nohting is questioned, not ever. Nancy Pelosi gives marching orders to stop talking about Russia and pivot to healthcare (which is a winning issue for them), and in the first 24 hours after she said that, every show on CNN and MSNBC has talked about healthcare.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

interesting pete. So in all things that make Trump look bad, you are remarkably well informed, you know all the facts and truths that paint him in a negative light. you post constantly.

Yet here on an issue that makes a liberal look bad, all of a sudden you can’t comment, because you don’t know enough, you don’t have access to the right information.

pete, you are right in many issues in my opinion. but when your beliefs don’t allow you to admit what every sane person knows what happened here, what does that say about your beliefs?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles

He is simply being dishonest,NPR has stolen his soul.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

it’s unbelievable....they simply cannot ever say anything that goes against the narrative. Not once, not ever, not on any topic. i’ve never had a dog so blindly and thoughtlessly obedient.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles

I am trying to help but he pushes away.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

They're as rabid as Jim Jones' followers. It's stupefying. Nohting is questioned, not ever. Nancy Pelosi gives marching orders to stop talking about Russia and pivot to healthcare (which is a winning issue for them), and in the first 24 hours after she said that, every show on CNN and MSNBC has talked about healthcare.

Quite the echo chamber you have going here.
Talk about blindly obedient, you think Pelosi made the media look at healthcare.
It was quite likely this tweet:
Donald J. Trump
Verified account
@realDonaldTrump
Mar 26
The Republican Party will become “The Party of Healthcare!”


Perhaps you can comment on the changes this year to the Rules of Golf.
I find that much more important in my life than a bad actor (pun intended).