outcome determinative bias
17 responses | 0 likes
Started by mcfarm - Feb. 24, 2019, 11:31 a.m.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kpSHrDVuQvE   with the Meuller probe about to wrap up {they say someday} this is a great review on how it started, why, who was involved and why it is the hoax of the century

By metmike - Feb. 24, 2019, 1:16 p.m.
Like Reply

WOW! Holy Cow!

If this isn't indisputable evidence that the FBI/Justice department is/was blatantly biased and corrupt then there is no such thing as bias and corruption.

We know that mcfarm is very biased himself and provides lots of extreme right views but I encourage you to listen to this entire interview and pretend it didn't come from mcfarm.

Can anybody from the left possibly defend this?

Our FBI/Justice department was clearly in the business of getting Clinton elected and making sure that Trump did not get elected and the Mueller probe investigators/investigation is an extension of that.

We've seen continued evidence as recently as last month, when the Mueller team provided CNN with a front row seat to create a round the clock pro Mueller spin on the arrest of Roger Stone.

To not be able to see this with absolute clarity is to not be able to process facts objectively. 

By metmike - Feb. 24, 2019, 1:18 p.m.
Like Reply

Just to review the last time that this latest incident was discussed:        


        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: U.S. hate groups on the rise            


                By metmike - Feb. 21, 2019, 10:04 p.m.            


"Mike, as written, that statement implies that Mueller personally leaked. or had a staff member, leak the arrest. You have not a shred  of proof that Mueller was involved. 

Why for heaven sake would anyone pick CNN, when CBS, NBC, and ABC all have a much bigger audience?"


I guess you forgot or did not see my response to you the first time you said this:


                Re: Re: Re: Well Mcfarm the simple fact            

                            By carlberky - Feb. 1, 2019, 1:50 p.m.            


IMHO, if they wanted to tip off someone about the raid, they would have picked NBC, CBS, or ABC for much greater coverage.


                Re: Re: Re: Re: Well Mcfarm the simple fact            

                By metmike - Feb. 1, 2019, 2:18 p.m.            


"I was thinking the exact opposite carl but its just my opinion.

I watch 3 stations for news.

Mainly CNN and FOX in the evenings, flipping back and forth and ABC nightly news at 5:30-6pm.  I bash CNN here all the time and its because I actually watch them to hear what they are saying/showing(I dont just go to the station that tells me what I want to hear, which Fox would be more likely to do)

Obviously they would never pick Fox. If they picked one of the other networks, it would show up in their nightly news with maybe a 2 minute story and follow up. Other stations would likely cover it too, like they have.

CNN already does wall to wall, around the clock anti Trump news, every day of the year. By a wide margin, getting CNN the scoup maximized the coverage. Now it can be on  the station most likely to put the right spin on it and will broadcast it frequently as part of their anti Trump stuff 24 hours a day."

With regards to not having a shred of proof, I laid out the facts here around half a dozen times.

I don't have a taped phone conversation, no but the facts as outlined previously say with 100% certainty that normal protocol was violated.

I'll review again for you.

1. It can't be disputed that CNN was right there with the FBI or they wouldn't have the video footage from that vantage point.

2. The court order against Stone has apparently taken the Stone house camera footage of CNN and the FBI interacting before hand off the air but that doesn't matter because of #1.

3. The chances of CNN having this powerful reporter "instinct" as their guy described it,  that caused them(and nobody else) to know to travel to this location from out of town and be there 1 hour before the bust is not zero. I can guess it's something like a 1% chance of being true........being generous.

4. The chance of them being there and not having Muellers team give them special permission that made a huge exception and violated protocol of every other case in history like this that I know about is exactly zero. 

5. Every resident on the street was told they could not even be outside of their houses. The entire street was blocked off and nobody but the FBI  and others connected to the arrest were allowed there.........as is always the case when you have 2 dozen heavily armed agents arresting some body. Everybody that is, except for CNN that was right there mingling with the heavily armed FBI agents.

6. I worked in broadcast television for 11 years and  we met every year with different police agencies,  state, county and city and from 2 different states to discuss protocol.  They weren't the FBI or federal law enforcement of course but no way, no how would CNN have been allowed to be there unless the Mueller team wanted them to be there and made a huge exception to any protocol or situation that I've ever heard about or seen. 

By metmike - Feb. 24, 2019, 1:21 p.m.
Like Reply

And the previous time:


Thanks pj,

I read the entire transcript. Wow. 

What blew my mind is how these bureaucrats, can plot to overthrow the duly elected president because they don't like or agree with his decisions........and it seems perfectly ok for them to act this way. 

No authorization from Congress or other legal entity.  He and others decided to assert their unlimited power to try to take this guy down because they thought the people voted for the wrong presidential candidate.

How do we know they think like this? How do we know that we can't trust him and several others like him, leading recent investigations that are clearly using politics(they lie about stuff and break laws)?

Let just use facts.

June 2016:  Loretta Lynch-Bill Clinton meeting.

It took place days before Lynch was going to release the findings of the justice departments investigation into Hillary(or "matter" not criminal investigation, if you go by what she told Comey to call it after she got busted and he suddenly had to take her job)

We can be absolutely certain that Lynch and Clinton were lying about their version of the story by looking at  what happened and how they described why/what happened. View the 2 links below.

The first link is from Clinton and Lynch telling their version.............a chance encounter from a freak set of coincidence's/circumstances.......not planned. Then they talked for at least 20 minutes(Lynch said initially about grandchildren and Bill's golf game-that never happened). 

The 2nd link is from the tv reporter telling us how he got tipped off hours earlier from a whistle blower that knew the meeting was going to happen. The reporter had to get approval from his higher ups of course to go cover the story. His photographer was not allowed to use his camera when he tried to record Lynch and Clinton.

The reporter can't be lying. Unless he has ESP, there was no way for him to know about the meeting much earlier and be there, if it had not be pre arranged by Clinton and Lynch. This tells us that Clinton and Lynn are lying about the meeting. It had to be pre arranged. It would be absurd to think that a pre arranged meeting like this was to discuss grandchildren and Bill's golf game that never happened. There is only one reason why they would meet.

Bill Clinton and Loretta Lynch describe their infamous “tarmac meeting”


            How a Local AZ Reporter Broke the Bombshell Clinton-Lynch Story           https://insider.foxnews.com/2016/07/01/how-was-local-reporter-tipped-clinton-lynch-meeting

"Sign explained that he received a tip from a "trusted source" about the meeting and then met with management at the station. 

"Naturally my jaw dropped," he recalled.

The meeting took place on a private tarmac at Phoenix's Sky Harbor International Airport, near where private aircraft take off and land.

Sign said that a second source confirmed the information and they then asked Lynch about it at a news conference Wednesday.

Lynch maintained that she did not discuss the investigation into Hillary Clinton's private email server or any other "cases" and that the former president didn't bring it up.

Before leaving the city, Mr. Clinton apparently waited at the airport Monday night for Lynch to arrive, then boarded her plane for a 30-minute conversation. "

"The FBI there on the tarmac instructed everybody: no photos, no pictures, no cell phones," Sign explained.

This only proves that they clearly lied about the preplanned meeting. Since we don't have a tape of their conversation at the time, only somebody lacking critical thinking doesn't believe they met to discuss how to present the results of the "matter" involving Hillary to the world. 

Comey: Lynch Ordered Me To Call Clinton Email Scandal A "Matter" And Not A "Criminal Investigation


Funniest thing is what they did just before the election to attempt to do some damage control, after millions questioned "Comey's" decision to let Hillary off the hook for what appeared to be crimes.

After it looked like Clinton had the election in the bag,..and they waited until they were close enough to the actual election because then, they were sure she would win.......they suddenly reopened the investigation to make it look like they really did not let her off the hook,  because of new information they found.............as if they didn't have a library's worth of information from many months of investigating already.  The "new" investigation showed that their "first" investigation had the right conclusion. How contrived can you get. This incident is just speculation not proof, like  with the meeting above......or the fact below. 

January 2019, Roger Stone arrest:

Another, more recent opportunity for us to judge the justice departments character(political bias) based on facts/proof was the the Roger Stone arrest and CNN obviously being tipped off and allowed to be with the FBI to record and arrest and broadcast it with the pro Mueller spin.............while the street was blocked off to traffic of any other humans. Even people that lived on the street were not allowed to be outside on their own property.....protocol for all situations like this. What is unprecedented is to have a tv station there, amongst the FBI agents, taping the entire thing to broadcast later. 

I worked for a tv station for 11 years.  No tv station would ever be allowed to be there like this under any circumstances that I can imagine. 

What this means is that Muellers team broke the law by tipping off(inviting) CNN to be there for personal political agenda. They colluded with CNN. 

There is a miniscule probability that CNN figured out there was going to be an arrest on their own and had it timed perfectly to be there an hour before the FBI got there.

There is a 0% chance. None what so ever, even if they somehow figured it out on there own, that Mueller did not give them extraordinarly unprecendented privileges to be right there with the FBI, taping the arrest, so that it would be broadcast on  CNN with the pro Mueller spin. 

Comey also admitted to leaking information to the media (under oath) that favored his spin on things.

Addition 2-19: So the top dogs in our criminal justice system that played key roles in the stories above are corrupt and political. Those scenarios could not have played out the way that they did if that was not the case.  I don't know much else about their careers but people that acted this way during these particular events, didn't just decide to suddenly make this 1 exception in a long career that was otherwise ethically spotless and politically unbiased.

If you hate Trump, you will believe everything  that McCabe says(and everything else bad about Trump) and none of these facts make any difference.

 If you support Trump, you will not believe McCabe and you will believe all of this and probably anything else that shows how corrupt and political our criminal justice gate keepers are.

I'm not like that. As a scientist, I use facts to lead me to what I think is the truth. 

By cliff-e - Feb. 24, 2019, 5:40 p.m.
Like Reply

Let's blame this whole mess on booze as it was alcohol that put George Papadopoulos' mouth in gear. Loose lips sink ships.


Mueller's still on the job and Mueller Ain't Goin' Away.


Ignoring the facts won't change them. Ignoring justice will do far worse. History repeats and number 45 is following in number 37's footsteps. They both had and will have their fan base to the very end.

By carlberky - Feb. 24, 2019, 6:40 p.m.
Like Reply

"Mike, as written, that statement implies that Mueller personally leaked. or had a staff member, leak the arrest. You have not a shred  of proof that Mueller was involved."

Mike, you still haven't addressed that issue.

By metmike - Feb. 24, 2019, 6:49 p.m.
Like Reply


I know that you don't realize it but you are providing more evidence of exactly what I've been saying about the justice departments investigations. 

Dershowitz: Mueller Has Found 'Almost No Crimes' From Before Russia Probe Started    


"Almost all of his crimes that's he's indicted people for are crimes that resulted from his investigation," Dershowitz said.

He noted, however, the fact that Stone's alleged crimes were generated by the Mueller probe does not make them any less criminal.

"But it really means that there's been a failure to uncover the basic crimes for which he was appointed. Namely, before he was appointed, was there illegal collusion, illegal conspiracy with Russia?"

Mueller's investigation has been CREATING crimes but not finding crimes that the investigation was intended to uncover. 


You linked to a 2017 article from the NYT about George Papadopoulos having connections with Russia because you found something from over a year ago  that you think tells something that you think is a reality............but obviously were not following the actual facts since then.

George Papadopoulos was convicted of lying to Mueller and offered nothing substantive for Mueller to establish any sort of collusion with Russia............another example of Muellers investigation creating crimes, just like I've been saying......thanks.

                              russia probe                  

Why the Mueller Probe’s Papadopoulos Bombshell Fizzled


"Papadopoulos didn’t get any of those assurances, and if anything, there’s little in the public record indicating that Papadopoulos was of much help to Mueller at all.

Mueller’s office theorized that Papadopoulos’s rampant lies were motivated by self-interest and an attempt to secure a job in the Trump administration."

By mcfarm - Feb. 24, 2019, 6:55 p.m.
Like Reply


if you think the first post was a good summary {and it was} here is a far more detailed summary to how deep the crevices and tentacles of this farce reached in the last days of the Obama administration

By TimNew - Feb. 24, 2019, 7:17 p.m.
Like Reply

OK,  this really bothers me.  

Not Trey Gowdy's questioning or the obvious conclusions...Those are all painfully unavoidable/indisputable.

What bothers me is that this is old and very well established news.  

I can understand liberals pretending that this is new and something they've never heard before. They'll pretend the same in a week/day/minute.  It's part of their training and an integral part of what makes them liberal.

But we have alleged conservatives, moderates and so called unbiased observers acting like this is the first time they've heard this.  

Huwwy kwap!!!!!


By metmike - Feb. 24, 2019, 7:49 p.m.
Like Reply

"I can understand liberals pretending that this is new and something they've never heard before. They'll pretend the same in a week/day/minute.  It's part of their training and an integral part of what makes them liberal."


I know that you believe what you just stated and are not intending it to be an insult but..........it is an insult. And it's an insult aimed at everybody that is liberal, even open minded liberals and if fact, you define it as being part of being liberal. 

This would ordinarily have to go. However, I have been accused of favoring "your" side recently and when I delete posts like this, I can't provide evidence of that not being the case.

It is true however, that by an extraordinarily wide margin, when I'm on a fact finding mission, all the facts mostly line up with one side(climate change/science, justice department and so on)........., which makes me look very biased against the other side.

By 7475 - Feb. 24, 2019, 10:08 p.m.
Like Reply

Thanks Mcfarm

Briefly, my reaction also is WOW!


By cliff-e - Feb. 24, 2019, 10:13 p.m.
Like Reply

"Dershowitz: Mueller Has Found 'Almost No Crimes' From Before Russia Probe Started "- posted by Metmike

1st of all...How do we find crimes without investigating? Mueller was appointed to investigate because somebody saw or heard something. Mueller, by the way, is a registered Republican investigating another Republican so it can't be said that he's politically biased in this instance.

And 2nd...if a lawyer or investigator gets hot on the trail of potential wrong doing...they're gonna keep digging and doing the job right down to finding parking or speeding tickets as well as any other wrong doing. Nothing is sacred or off limits. It's what they're paid to do.

Number 37 had a problem with people investigating and the press reporting it. Number 45 is just blindly following in his footsteps as the clock ticks forward. The "horse" is outta the barn and there's no turning back to undo the crimes committed.

By mcfarm - Feb. 24, 2019, 10:31 p.m.
Like Reply

cliff if you don't know, and by God I  certainly hope that you do, the fbi is to investigate crimes not people

By metmike - Feb. 25, 2019, 12:21 a.m.
Like Reply


Believe what you want for whatever reason that you want to believe it.  The cases are extraordinarily compelling and backed by numerous  facts.

I  just can't make it any  more compelling. 

By carlberky - Feb. 25, 2019, 4:23 p.m.
Like Reply

" ... the fbi is to investigate crimes not people".

Mike, if the FBI is tasked with an investigation by the Justice Department, and since  crimes are committed by people, how else could they proceed except by investigating people ?

By metmike - Feb. 25, 2019, 5:23 p.m.
Like Reply

Thanks carl but that was something mcfarm stated.

By mcfarm - Feb. 25, 2019, 6:12 p.m.
Like Reply

seems pretty clear there was a time in this country when the fbi was the premier investigative force. They were presented crimes and investigated. Turned their investigation over to the attorney general and company to prosecute. Here recently they have chosen certain targets and tried to hang a crime on them......or worse yet in the cases of Hillary, brennan, clapper, comey McCabe, page etc have appointed them selves judge and jury and exonerated them

By metmike - Feb. 25, 2019, 6:57 p.m.
Like Reply

I might add that even though mcfarm said it, it seems pretty clear that the FBI is totally biased when it comes to "who" to investigate, what to investigate about and when/what to charge them with based on "who" they are.