Former Mueller team member Peter Strzok exchanged hundreds of anti-Trump texts prior to dismissal. Concerning?

The FBI also removes people from investigations if they find out they were sending hundreds of negative messages about the people they are investigating. Some might even say the FBI does such good work because they take combating bias very seriously. They don't just hand wave it as a vice of the unvirtuous.

Would you really want somebody on a jury that hates you, but says, "Don't worry, I can be impartial?" Part of good judgement is to realize that your opinion could be compromised and to excuse yourself. Lots of people think they can be completely fair and impartial, but that's incredibly difficult and highly unlikely. There's likely a large amount of implicit bias.

As previously mentioned, there doesnt seem to be a big deal here as this gentleman was excused from the case - as he should be.

He is real and lives on the Northpole

You can't be on a jury if you know the individuals personally. That doesn't mean some jury members don't take dislikes to defendants, witnesses, or attorneys.

Actually there are a lot of reason why you can't be on a jury. One of them is as mentioned above , if you have a bias for or against the defendant.

Only people who benefits from it claims that you can bias and still be impartial.

You can hate somone without knowing them personally. If you have a strong dislike of a person, don't you think that is going to cloud your judgement on them?

Wouldn't the question look more like "Would you get kicked off of a jury for sending hundreds of negative messages about the defendant." There really isn't any point to asking them if they feel they can be impartial. Failing to dismiss them just opens up avenues for an appeal.

This is a false analogy. The FBI is not determining guilt or innocence. They gather evidence and form a case and that case must stand on its own. Not liking someone doesn't magically produce finger prints on a murder weapon and no prosecutor opens their case with "Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, we don't like this guy."

If your argument is that personal biases can lead to evidence tampering, that is a leap (you could just as easily argue personal bias would make you more careful in an investigation so as to not let the case slip through your fingers). In this case, you'd be making an accusation with no evidence and essentially writing the narrative certain pundits want you to write for them. The point is not to prove the FBI is corrupt but to get you to doubt, which is why a discussion of the many checks the FBI has put in place to filter out bias is so relevant and its absence within the republican discourse so noticeable. Sure, let's have that discussion - most conspiracies exist in a vacuum of information.

but consider the people making this argument of bias and then consider Clarence Thomas and his wife and his refusal to recuse himself in the case of certain obamacare provisions back in 2012. It's almost farcical to hear republicans make the conflict of interest argument against people like McCabe and Strzok after that. If you're going to apply the standard to others but not yourself...

Your position would have a lot more credibility if the FBI had not already determined that this was enough to warrant reassignment. It is almost as if one of the checks the FBI puts into place to filter out bias got tripped.

@kittennose: Your position would have a lot more credibility if the FBI had not already determined that this was enough to warrant reassignment. It is almost as if one of the checks the FBI puts into place to filter out bias got tripped.

You're assuming he actually got reassigned for bias and not politics. Mueller is very aware of the games played in Congress. As I said earlier, these guys prosecute terrorists for a living. Don't tell me for a second there isn't actual hate for those suspects, and yet the prosecution rate is 99%. As Rosenstein pointed out, there's a difference between having feelings and displaying bias. Proving that Strzok had feelings prior to being included in the investigation does not mean he acted in a biased manner during the investigation...that is a leap that people are asking you to make but it requires you assume professionalism is impossible - the very same sort of professionalism that republicans argued would allow Clarence Thomas to render a fair judgement in 2012.

And my position in that posting is that being a juror is not comparable to being an investigator. A juror can derail a case because they don't like the look of the defendant or because the prosecution is a little too cocky; no prosecutor would go to trial because the investigators don't like the suspect. Ultimately Congress would have agree to move on the findings and they're going to require an evidentiary standard that can't be met by feelings.

I was stuck on a civil trial which only requires a consensus of . So other than myself and one individual which followed the law requirements...........the other hated/disliked....whatever word you chose to use...........the attorneys hired and voted against the individual even as they had proven the law requirement. So you tell me.

Well, That is what the FBI said, and I assume they are not actively spreading misinformation about their motives and methodology. This is going to be one of the most public and scrutinized investigations in American history. I expect the FBI to play it above board, not lie to the public. I mean heck even if you don't buy that they have moral integrity, it is kind of dumb to lie to the nation when bloggers are combing your words for any lie they can latch onto.

I am however open to the possibility that their stated reasons are outright lies fabricated to protect their political agenda. It seems unlikely, but possible. I do not see how that would help your argument. If the FBI lies to the American people to protect it's political agenda, even when they know they are being heavily scrutinized, I see no reason to bother asking them if they can set their political agenda aside.

What is the point, if you expect them to lie?

It's not going to work. Mueller won't be removed, this is a waste of the time of these dishonest GOP nuts.

Because a lot of the policy opinions and decisions are unpopular in America. As well as his behavior. This is seen through multiple polls.

So it's not some anomaly, there is reason behind it.

Sure and in a recent poll it showed that Santa is real.

they're not lying. What i'm suggesting is there is no rule in the FBI that requires them to remove someone from an investigation under these circumstances (again, the point about the prosecution of terrorists). Mueller made the call unilaterally because he knows Washington. He wasn't afraid the investigation would suffer, he was afraid of the Congressional spin machine getting a hold of it. Consider that at least half of Mueller's team donated and voted for Hillary. Is that bias? Nobody is removing them.

This is the exact strategy Democrats used against Starr, and despite every claim to Starr's supposed lack of impartiality, he still proved perjury - because evidence stands on its own. This isn't about Mueller - it's about running cover for republicans to vote against impeachment and not look like they're covering for a criminal. I mean, if this is the worst they can dig up Mueller's team, then he runs a tight ship. Seriously - what were you texting when Trump referenced his penis size during a debate?

The FBI stated their reasons for the transfer. They didn't say they made the transfer for political reasons. A theory that depends up the transfer being political also depends upon the FBI being dishonest about the reason for the transfer. If you think the FBI doesn't understand those guidelines feel free to make that criticism. I do not really see how that helps your position.

At the end of the day there is a huge different between a law enforcement agent who tweets out "rapists are evil." and one who tweets out "Bill Clinton is evil" several hundred times. If more Clinton accusers step forward an officer or agent who tweets out the first is unlikely to be barred from participating in any investigation. Law enforcement however isn't going to let anyone who tweeted out something as gentle as "I dislike Bill Clinton" several hundred times anywhere near the case. Much less someone who openly hated him. They are not going to say "Well, they said they would be unbiased so..." They are going to transfer them to another case.

If you don't think accusations of law enforcement bias can mean the difference between a conviction and an acquittal, you might wish to look into the carrier of Johnny Cochran.

You're so easy to own,

Trumpcare,

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/06/28/suffolk-poll-obamacare-trump-senate-health-care-plan/103249346/

http://www.businessinsider.com/quinnipiac-poll-shows-17-percent-of-american-support-trumpcare-ahca-2017-3

Climate,

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/06/05/post-abc-poll-nearly-6-in-10-oppose-trump-scrapping-paris-agreement/

http://www.apnorc.org/news-media/Pages/AP-NORC-poll-Few-favor-Trump-move-to-ditch-Paris-accord.aspx

Coal,

http://news.gallup.com/poll/190268/prioritize-alternative-energy-oil-gas.aspx

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/01/23/two-thirds-of-americans-give-priority-to-developing-alternative-energy-over-fossil-fuels/

https://poll.qu.edu/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2449

Tax Plan,

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2017/11/03/voters-reject-the-gops-tax-ideas/?utm_term=.0a3d7e182965

http://thehill.com/policy/finance/352418-poll-just-28-percent-back-trumps-tax-plan

Transgender Ban,

http://time.com/4886165/trump-transgender-ban-poll/

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/344352-poll-majority-of-americans-oppose-trumps-transgender-military-ban

Dreamers,

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/survey-finds-strong-support-for-dreamers/2017/09/24/df3c885c-a16f-11e7-b14f-f41773cd5a14_story.html

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/09/05/poll-trump-deporting-daca-dreamers-242343

Russia Probe,

http://www.newsweek.com/trump-may-think-mueller-probe-fake-news-voters-dont-agree-poll-shows-712448

http://www.cnn.com/2017/12/21/politics/trump-mueller-russia-poll/index.html

http://www.newsweek.com/robert-mueller-donald-trump-approval-rating-russia-investigation-756404

Behavior,

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/06/29/fox-news-poll-voters-say-trumps-tweets-hurting-agenda.html

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/10/25/trump-poll-reckless-honest-244126

https://poll.qu.edu/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2482

I don't think I need to link the Net Neutrality polls, I'm sure you know the results.

All of these results likely reflect upon his low general approval as well.

@kittennose: I don't know how to explain this to you. The claim of possible bias indicators is why he was reassigned. But the FBI does not have a rule demanding that mere opposition to the subject of an investigation is grounds for dismissal, otherwise half of Mueller's team would be gone considered they both donated to and voted for Clinton this past election. So it's clearly discretionary. Sometimes we reassign, sometimes we don't. What made him decide it was worth reassignment? Political considerations. It's not just about serving justice it's about being seen as doing so, so that means eliminating distractions, things people will try to use to obfuscate the reality born out by physical evidence. That is playing politics.

Again, how many times do you think someone investigating terrorism or pedophilia turns to a fellow agent and says "this guy is a real scumbag." What you're proposing is an unrealistic standard, or as some have taken to call it - the Hannity standard.

and are you talking about Mark Fuhrman? The guy perjured himself. And when asked if he planted evidence, pleaded the fifth. Then there was the prosecution's hairbrained decision to let OJ try the gloves on. Additionally you have to consider Rodney King and the ongoing cultural climate of the case with the cops being seen as antagonistic to the AA community. The tape of his racial opinions fit into an existing narrative, and that narrative created reasonable doubt, not Fuhrman's individual feelings.

The FBI's position on the removal is clear:

"The matter is an ongoing investigation by the Office of Inspector General (OIG), consistent with well-established processes designed to objectively, thoroughly, and fairly determine the facts regarding potential wrongdoing.

The FBI has clearly defined policies and procedures regarding appropriate employee conduct, including communications. When the FBI first learned of the allegations, the employees involved were immediately reassigned, consistent with practices involving employee matters.

The FBI holds all of its employees to the highest standards of integrity, independence, and professionalism, as the American public rightly expects."

Unless you think that is a formal way of saying "We are needlessly resigning agents for political reasons" your theory depends on FBI spreading falsehoods to protect their investigation. From my understanding the individual has been taken from counter intelligence and dumped in HR, not merely moved to another case. If that kind of hit is purely political, that is a whole 'nother kind of dishonesty. Dishonesty propagated to protect the investigation. That isn't a positive.

Additionally, there is a huge difference between investigating a pedophile while getting caught saying they are a skum, and being part of an investigation of an individual after you used department devices to send hundreds of messages about how you loathe a particular individual.

Finally: Mark Fuhrman's remarks are a great example of how the bias of an investigator can tank a case, but Johnny Cochran had a long career. If you haven't noticed, law enforcement isn't more beloved now then when he was alive. They have gotten more careful about this kind of thing because in the real world it can sink a case.

I have no idea what you're saying anymore. But going way back to the original point. Having someone on an investigative team that has a personal agenda against the person being investigated. Not good. Unless you are LJS and of course it wont affect your judgement.

@kittennose: Additionally, there is a huge difference between investigating a pedophile while getting caught saying they are a skum, and being part of an investigation of an individual after you used department devices to send hundreds of messages about how you loathe a particular individual.

then lay it out. What is actually the difference? Because it sounds like you are saying the difference is quantity, when if it really matters what a person feels, any singular indication should mean just as much. I'm not arguing what you can get one idiot on a jury to believe, I'm arguing reality. In reality personal feelings get in the way for children, not for professionals. Dems pulled the same shit on Starr, got him to change around a few people. It's not a substance argument; it's a smoke screen.

and if you can't tell the difference between a political maneuver and one of substance, I can't really help you. That response was boilerplate, Washington nothing-to-see-here. Consider that the DoJ released these texts while apparently in the process of doing an investigation on them as per the statement you quoted. That is actually against procedure. Let me spell it out for you - Sessions is playing politics and Mueller is playing them back. And in other breaking news, there's gambling going on in the casino.

In order for this theory to be true, the FBI would have had to of respond to a possible threat to their case by dumping the Chief of the Counterespionage Section of the FBI absent cause and kicking off a misinformation campaign designed to deceive the American people about their true intentions.

If you can't tell why that hurts your argument, I can't help you either.