Are Never Trumpers OK with the Destruction of Evidence by Mueller’s Team?

 

I just don’t get it. Never Trumpers have gone on and on and on about how Mueller was on to something, but just could not prove it. Mueller did not exonerate Trump, etc.

Well.

If Mueller was that and a bag of chips, and his crew were as pure a the driven snow, how on Earth can they justify the destruction of evidence? These people all managed to “accidentally” destroy evidence. Come on.

Maybe some of our legal experts in the community could weigh in on how the destruction of evidence is a crime.

I’d love to hear from the pro-Mueller crowd on this. Y’all have been so behind this man, and still think Trump colluded with Russia to fix the election, despite no strong evidence it happened. I dare you to explain how this sort of very strong evidence of malfeasance, this criminal activity by the team doing the investigation is OK and has no bearing at all on the investigation. Because my belief is that anyone investigator that destroys evidence is an investigator that is building a lie.

Change my mind.

Published in General
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 190 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Roderic Coolidge
    Roderic
    @rhfabian

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    •  Would Biden have been a Birther?
    • Would Biden say that he prefers war heroes who were not captured?
    • Would Biden say that there were very good people at Charlottesville?
    • Would Biden try to bribe Ukraine into opening a bogus election?
    • Would Biden lie and directly contribute to almost 200,000 dead Americans?

    So this confirms my impression of Never Trumpers as people who uncritically repeat every lie that has ever been uttered about Trump.  How else could you believe that Trump, the most effective conservative president we’ve had in a long time, is a “cancer” on the Republican Party?

    Trump has some bad qualities.  So did Reagan. 

    Contrary to his small government ideas, Reagan grew the federal debt and increased the size of government. 

    His hands off style resulted in illegal activities in his administration. 

    Violent crime increased on his watch. 

    He failed to get rid of the Dept. of Education, as he’d promised.  Never Trumpers don’t want to give Trump credit for trying to build the Wall, so why should Reagan get credit for trying?   

    Trump has been criticized for being cozy with tyrants.  So was Reagan. 

    Trump is often accused of being a racist, but it was Reagan who was actually hostile to civil rights initiatives.  Trump has consistently reached out to minorities; Reagan never did.   The Reagan presidency was a time infamous to resident aliens of color, who were stopped in the street repeatedly by immigration agents, their papers demanded and deportation threatened.  Bounties were offered for people to turn their friends into immigration.  

    The point isn’t that Reagan wasn’t a great president.  He was.  But there is a lack of consistency in how some  supposed Reagan supporters judge Trump.

    As for Biden, Jesus Christ!  Give me a break.  Biden would do or say all of those things and worse if he thought it would win him votes.  He even repeats the worst, low down, damnable, evil, and damaging to the country lie of all time, which is that Trump said that Neonazis were “fine people”.  Only a piece of excrement would continue to say that.  

     

     

    • #181
  2. CACrabtree Coolidge
    CACrabtree
    @CACrabtree

    Bob Thompson (View Comment):

    DrewInWisconsin, Man of Consta… (View Comment):

    Dennis A. Garcia (formerly Gai… (View Comment):

    All I am asking for is if the loss of black lives is OK or not. If you say it is not OK, then yes, I will follow up on any support you show for the police, if not I will hold you to account for white supremacy, by filling in what I assume you believe about unrelated cases.

    So, you are right that no matter how a White Supremecist or Trump supporter answers, it undermines his position. But that is because the facts support me. If someone supports locking immigrant children in cages and gunning down unarmed black citizens then they must ignore the value of non-white lives. To any reasonable person, this looks fishy.

    Who are these white supremacists you’re talking about? Even the media-creation of Whatsisname Spencer couldn’t fill a room with more than 200 people. “White Supremacists” are a phantom threat. I can’t take you seriously. There aren’t enough white supremacists in this country to be concerned about, and the ones that do exist aren’t organized enough to cause any serious trouble. Meanwhile we’ve got BLM rampaging through our cities, ambushing and executing police officers, under the cover of favorable media coverage, and the anti-Trumpers are all “But Q-Anon!”

     

    This fits with my assessment. My life experience doesn’t indicate to me that there is much out there in terms of numbers. J. Edgar Hoover was very adept at accruing embarrassing information to use in his dealings with others.

    It would appear that the only things separating Hoover’s FBI and the FBI of Comey, McCabe, Strzok-Page, et al. are the pink tutus.

    • #182
  3. DrewInWisconsin, Man of Constant Sorrow Member
    DrewInWisconsin, Man of Constant Sorrow
    @DrewInWisconsin

    CACrabtree (View Comment):

    Bob Thompson (View Comment):

    DrewInWisconsin, Man of Consta… (View Comment):

    Dennis A. Garcia (formerly Gai… (View Comment):

    All I am asking for is if the loss of black lives is OK or not. If you say it is not OK, then yes, I will follow up on any support you show for the police, if not I will hold you to account for white supremacy, by filling in what I assume you believe about unrelated cases.

    So, you are right that no matter how a White Supremecist or Trump supporter answers, it undermines his position. But that is because the facts support me. If someone supports locking immigrant children in cages and gunning down unarmed black citizens then they must ignore the value of non-white lives. To any reasonable person, this looks fishy.

    Who are these white supremacists you’re talking about? Even the media-creation of Whatsisname Spencer couldn’t fill a room with more than 200 people. “White Supremacists” are a phantom threat. I can’t take you seriously. There aren’t enough white supremacists in this country to be concerned about, and the ones that do exist aren’t organized enough to cause any serious trouble. Meanwhile we’ve got BLM rampaging through our cities, ambushing and executing police officers, under the cover of favorable media coverage, and the anti-Trumpers are all “But Q-Anon!”

     

    This fits with my assessment. My life experience doesn’t indicate to me that there is much out there in terms of numbers. J. Edgar Hoover was very adept at accruing embarrassing information to use in his dealings with others.

    It would appear that the only things separating Hoover’s FBI and the FBI of Comey, McCabe, Strzok-Page, et al. are the pink tutus.

    I’m sure Strzok has a few pink tutus lying around.

    Peter Strzok GIF - PeterStrzok - Discover & Share GIFs

    • #183
  4. CACrabtree Coolidge
    CACrabtree
    @CACrabtree

    DrewInWisconsin, Man of Consta… (View Comment):

    CACrabtree (View Comment):

    Bob Thompson (View Comment):

    DrewInWisconsin, Man of Consta… (View Comment):

    Dennis A. Garcia (formerly Gai… (View Comment):

    All I am asking for is if the loss of black lives is OK or not. If you say it is not OK, then yes, I will follow up on any support you show for the police, if not I will hold you to account for white supremacy, by filling in what I assume you believe about unrelated cases.

    So, you are right that no matter how a White Supremecist or Trump supporter answers, it undermines his position. But that is because the facts support me. If someone supports locking immigrant children in cages and gunning down unarmed black citizens then they must ignore the value of non-white lives. To any reasonable person, this looks fishy.

    Who are these white supremacists you’re talking about? Even the media-creation of Whatsisname Spencer couldn’t fill a room with more than 200 people. “White Supremacists” are a phantom threat. I can’t take you seriously. There aren’t enough white supremacists in this country to be concerned about, and the ones that do exist aren’t organized enough to cause any serious trouble. Meanwhile we’ve got BLM rampaging through our cities, ambushing and executing police officers, under the cover of favorable media coverage, and the anti-Trumpers are all “But Q-Anon!”

     

    This fits with my assessment. My life experience doesn’t indicate to me that there is much out there in terms of numbers. J. Edgar Hoover was very adept at accruing embarrassing information to use in his dealings with others.

    It would appear that the only things separating Hoover’s FBI and the FBI of Comey, McCabe, Strzok-Page, et al. are the pink tutus.

    I’m sure Strzok has a few pink tutus lying around.

    Peter Strzok GIF - PeterStrzok - Discover & Share GIFs

    Ah jeez, there went my lunch.  Thanks.

    He and Lisa Page were made for each other…

    • #184
  5. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Roderic (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    • Would Biden have been a Birther?
    • Would Biden say that he prefers war heroes who were not captured?
    • Would Biden say that there were very good people at Charlottesville?
    • Would Biden try to bribe Ukraine into opening a bogus election?
    • Would Biden lie and directly contribute to almost 200,000 dead Americans?

    So this confirms my impression of Never Trumpers as people who uncritically repeat every lie that has ever been uttered about Trump. How else could you believe that Trump, the most effective conservative president we’ve had in a long time, is a “cancer” on the Republican Party?

    Trump has some bad qualities. So did Reagan.

    Contrary to his small government ideas, Reagan grew the federal debt and increased the size of government.

    His hands off style resulted in illegal activities in his administration.

    Violent crime increased on his watch.

    He failed to get rid of the Dept. of Education, as he’d promised. Never Trumpers don’t want to give Trump credit for trying to build the Wall, so why should Reagan get credit for trying?

    Trump has been criticized for being cozy with tyrants. So was Reagan.

    Trump is often accused of being a racist, but it was Reagan who was actually hostile to civil rights initiatives. Trump has consistently reached out to minorities; Reagan never did. The Reagan presidency was a time infamous to resident aliens of color, who were stopped in the street repeatedly by immigration agents, their papers demanded and deportation threatened. Bounties were offered for people to turn their friends into immigration.

    The point isn’t that Reagan wasn’t a great president. He was. But there is a lack of consistency in how some supposed Reagan supporters judge Trump.

    As for Biden, Jesus Christ! Give me a break. Biden would do or say all of those things and worse if he thought it would win him votes. He even repeats the worst, low down, damnable, evil, and damaging to the country lie of all time, which is that Trump said that Neonazis were “fine people”. Only a piece of excrement would continue to say that.

     

    Gary Robbins, call your office.

     

    • #185
  6. Instugator Thatcher
    Instugator
    @Instugator

    Roderic (View Comment):
    Trump has some bad qualities. So did Reagan. 

    Reagan should have responded more forcefully to the bombing of the Marine Barracks.

    just sayin’

    • #186
  7. Instugator Thatcher
    Instugator
    @Instugator

    Roderic (View Comment):
    Trump, the most effective conservative president we’ve had in a long time,

    This is true. Best President of the century (so far).

    • #187
  8. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens
    @BryanGStephens

    Instugator (View Comment):

    Roderic (View Comment):
    Trump has some bad qualities. So did Reagan.

    Reagan should have responded more forcefully to the bombing of the Marine Barracks.

    just sayin’

    Yes! 

    And frankly, should have gotten hostages back and putnished Iran. 

    • #188
  9. Architectus Coolidge
    Architectus
    @Architectus

    David Carroll (View Comment):

    Kozak (View Comment):

    David Carroll (View Comment):
    For smart people in the DOJ, one may possibly be an accident (although unlikely), but 31? Highly, highly doubtful. But how does a prosecutor prove beyond a reasonable doubt that any individual acted intentionally, despite the obvious conclusion that almost all if not all were intentional?

    This is a classic RICO case.

    I had not though to RICO. From US Legal website:

    A RICO claim requires proof of four elements:

    1) The existence of an enterprise affecting interstate commerce;

    2) That Defendants were employed by or associated with the enterprise;

    3) That the Defendants participated, directly or indirectly, in the conduct or affairs of the enterprise; and

    4) That the Defendants participated through a pattern of racketeering activity that must include the allegation of at least two racketeering acts.

    I can see it if an “enterprise” can be an agency of the federal government or a project of a government agency. I think it could break new ground.

    I certainly can see the continued pursuit of the Russia probe after they knew it as B.S. as a “pattern of racketeering activity.” Again, can government conduct constitute a racketeering activity? Unless there is some strong case law or a definition (which I have not researched), it is certainly possible. It would have to get past the judges who are government employees who seem to protect the government at all costs.

    I have favored a RICO approach for a few reasons.  One, the “enterprise” term was intentionally open so that the parties could be a loose association, and not dodge any charges by lack of an official membership list and bylaws. (True, being part of our OWN government might cause hesitation, but it has not been a problem when considering corrupt foreign governments involved in the drug trade, who can be targeted.)  The “Mueller Investigation Team” should be enough to qualify as an enterprise, and by hamstringing the elected federal executive, certainly affected interstate commerce in numerous ways.  Two, the phone wipers were members of the Mueller Investigation Team, associated with and employed by the Independent Counsel.  Three, the players clearly participated directly in said investigation.  Check.  Four, the dozen or so phone-wipers constitute a pattern of activity – clearly illegal acts of destroying evidence.  Most importantly, each individual had a positive duty to protect the data, not simply a passive one.  The repeated entering of incorrect passwords leading to the wipes were knowing acts, each time, while ignoring localized warnings as well as their sworn duty to act in accordance with accepted policies and procedures.  In my opinion, we do not need to read minds or infer intent, or even show that what was wiped was illicit – the acts themselves violated the law, they knew they were violating the law, regardless of why they did it.  

    • #189
  10. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens
    @BryanGStephens

    Architectus (View Comment):

    David Carroll (View Comment):

    Kozak (View Comment):

    David Carroll (View Comment):
    For smart people in the DOJ, one may possibly be an accident (although unlikely), but 31? Highly, highly doubtful. But how does a prosecutor prove beyond a reasonable doubt that any individual acted intentionally, despite the obvious conclusion that almost all if not all were intentional?

    This is a classic RICO case.

    I had not though to RICO. From US Legal website:

    A RICO claim requires proof of four elements:

    1) The existence of an enterprise affecting interstate commerce;

    2) That Defendants were employed by or associated with the enterprise;

    3) That the Defendants participated, directly or indirectly, in the conduct or affairs of the enterprise; and

    4) That the Defendants participated through a pattern of racketeering activity that must include the allegation of at least two racketeering acts.

    I can see it if an “enterprise” can be an agency of the federal government or a project of a government agency. I think it could break new ground.

    I certainly can see the continued pursuit of the Russia probe after they knew it as B.S. as a “pattern of racketeering activity.” Again, can government conduct constitute a racketeering activity? Unless there is some strong case law or a definition (which I have not researched), it is certainly possible. It would have to get past the judges who are government employees who seem to protect the government at all costs.

    I have favored a RICO approach for a few reasons. One, the “enterprise” term was intentionally open so that the parties could be a loose association, and not dodge any charges by lack of an official membership list and bylaws. (True, being part of our OWN government might cause hesitation, but it has not been a problem when considering corrupt foreign governments involved in the drug trade, who can be targeted.) The “Mueller Investigation Team” should be enough to qualify as an enterprise, and by hamstringing the elected federal executive, certainly affected interstate commerce in numerous ways. Two, the phone wipers were members of the Mueller Investigation Team, associated with and employed by the Independent Counsel. Three, the players clearly participated directly in said investigation. Check. Four, the dozen or so phone-wipers constitute a pattern of activity – clearly illegal acts of destroying evidence. Most importantly, each individual had a positive duty to protect the data, not simply a passive one. The repeated entering of incorrect passwords leading to the wipes were knowing acts, each time, while ignoring localized warnings as well as their sworn duty to act in accordance with accepted policies and procedures. In my opinion, we do not need to read minds or infer intent, or even show that what was wiped was illicit – the acts themselves violated the law, they knew they were violating the law, regardless of why they did it.

    You have me sold

    • #190
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.