POLITICS & DONALD Annoying Orange MEGATHREAD

[Ipquarx]

I talked to my dad(a lawyer) about this situation, and he said he could explain it further this evening, but he directed me to this article to explain the situation. I’m sure the handicaps on this forum will scream “Annoying Orange REEEEEE FOX NEWS REEEEEEEE”, but someone on the bar is infinitely more credible than the idiots on this forum, and in this topic.

So the article says that generic collusion isn't a crime, which it isn't (plenty of other news outlets have came to the same conclusion too), but it doesn't mention potential charges of obstruction of justice or the closest thing we have to a collusion crime which is treason.

Just as an example, Nixon was charged with Obstruction of Justice.

[Ad Bot]

[SeventhSandwich]

Lolno

I hope Annoying Orange shares your sentiments since I'm for anything that gets the oaf out of office faster.

[Grimlock²]

So the article says that generic collusion isn't a crime, which it isn't (plenty of other news outlets have came to the same conclusion too), but it doesn't mention potential charges of obstruction of justice or the closest thing we have to a collusion crime which is treason.

Just as an example, Nixon was charged with Obstruction of Justice.

I’m going to differ this argument until later because I’m not going to be corderlain and act like everything I say is indisputible fact.

[Tactical Nuke]

nevermind that half the mueller team has gross conflicts of interest

[IkeTheGeneric]

nevermind that half the mueller team has gross conflicts of interest

You can keep saying this, but it doesn't mean you're any less wrong

[SeventhSandwich]

nevermind that half the mueller team has gross conflicts of interest

So, one person had conflicts of interests, and was immediately fired by Mueller after it came to light?

[Tactical Nuke]

So, one person had conflicts of interests, and was immediately fired by Mueller after it came to light?

read more

[SeventhSandwich]

read more

The other stuff seems a lot more tenuous, but I'll give you the fact that the donation records is hard evidence that there's Clinton support within Mueller's legal team.

But like, what's the consequence from this? Being biased doesn't mean that they're faking records or planting evidence- if they come up with a strong, evidence-based case, it shouldn't matter what their allegiances are since the evidence speaks for itself.

On a side note, I've read more about the guy who Mueller fired that worked on the Clinton investigation, and the memo that he edited was being sent out after Comey's team had already decided they weren't going to press charges. The words 'gross negligence' were changed because that does imply the need for prosecution, which wasn't the aim they were going for.

[SeventhSandwich]

Another way to look at it is this- basically everyone (except for centrist libertarians and greenies) has some kind of strong preference for either Annoying Orange or Clinton. Wouldn't it be worse for the special prosecutor's team to be biased for Annoying Orange rather than against him? Seeing as how it's ridiculously easy to ignore/hide evidence, but near-impossible to fake/produce it.

[Tactical Nuke]

Another way to look at it is this- basically everyone (except for centrist libertarians and greenies) has some kind of strong preference for either Annoying Orange or Clinton. Wouldn't it be worse for the special prosecutor's team to be biased for Annoying Orange rather than against him? Seeing as how it's ridiculously easy to ignore/hide evidence, but near-impossible to fake/produce it.

it would be bad either way
the investigators are supposed to be impartial so that it doesn't screw with the investigation at all

[Magus]

Another way to look at it is this- basically everyone (except for centrist libertarians and greenies) has some kind of strong preference for either Annoying Orange or Clinton. Wouldn't it be worse for the special prosecutor's team to be biased for Annoying Orange rather than against him? Seeing as how it's ridiculously easy to ignore/hide evidence, but near-impossible to fake/produce it.

This. Good luck finding somebody in this country who isn't biased towards either Annoying Orange or Clinton.

[SeventhSandwich]

it would be bad either way
the investigators are supposed to be impartial so that it doesn't screw with the investigation at all

I agree that impartial investigators would be nice, but is that realistically possible? Annoying Orange is a lot like OJ Simpson or Casey Anthony in that it's near impossible to find people who don't have some kind of preformed opinion on whether they're guilty.

The people working for Mueller aren't a jury, so there's zero chance that their biases are going to result in Annoying Orange being falsely convicted. All they're doing is creating a case against Annoying Orange, and potentially not even that. If they're biased against him, it means they have personal motivations to seek out evidence proving his guilt, but they aren't going to be able to find anything unless Annoying Orange actually did something criminal.

Meanwhile, if the entire Comey team was biased for Clinton, it's far easier for them to ease up on the rigor of their investigation to avoid a conviction. Surely you agree that's a worse scenario than having Comey's team be anti-Clinton, yes?

[IkeTheGeneric]

the investigators are supposed to be impartial so that it doesn't screw with the investigation at all

Their investigation is supposed to be impartial. There's a key difference in specifics here.

For the most part it sounds like it, considering the guy who made clearly anti-Annoying Orange remarks through texts got booted off the investigation. But I guess since you're still here sulking in the details, nothing's really gonna change your mind otherwise.

[Tactical Nuke]

I agree that impartial investigators would be nice, but is that realistically possible? Annoying Orange is a lot like OJ Simpson or Casey Anthony in that it's near impossible to find people who don't have some kind of preformed opinion on whether they're guilty.

The people working for Mueller aren't a jury, so there's zero chance that their biases are going to result in Annoying Orange being falsely convicted. All they're doing is creating a case against Annoying Orange, and potentially not even that. If they're biased against him, it means they have personal motivations to seek out evidence proving his guilt, but they aren't going to be able to find anything unless Annoying Orange actually did something criminal.

Meanwhile, if the entire Comey team was biased for Clinton, it's far easier for them to ease up on the rigor of their investigation to avoid a conviction. Surely you agree that's a worse scenario than having Comey's team be anti-Clinton, yes?

it's funny that you mention that, because a lot of the people on mueller's team that have these conflicts of interest were also largely involved with the clinton administration

[IkeTheGeneric]

And because that reach the verdict you personally wanted, they're biased...