Howie Carr: Come clean on FBI frame-up, Bob Mueller

[Theo520]

Howie’s article made it clear that those attacks were nonsensical.

I expressed my gratitude for the OP’s link because it made that nonsense clear, and provided an opportunity to set the record straight. I would hope that all see the value of correcting false allegations.

I recall giving you the ‘heart’ in the other thread by clarifying his work history. However, the content in this article does raise serious questions about his integrity and whether he did allow innocent people to remain in jail (not that he put them there).

 

[dvdjs]

I admitted I was mistaken in saying hat Mueller was the one who sent the men to prison.

Sorry I must have missed that. I am sure I will find it among your recent posts.

I guess you do not see the difference between disagreeing with someone or even correcting an error, and asserting that they have leveled “false” charges or spoken falsehoods.

The posting of a falsehood is a matter of objective fact. Unlike interpretations, or opinions, there is no room for disagreement on matters of objective fact. Multiple opportunities were presented for you to correct an error of fact, but they did not seem to be pursued. And the fundamental point is that your facts in need of correction formed a basis for some extreme attacks on Mueller.

Pope Francis recently reflected on where this sort of thing could go …

1. Christians too can be caught up in networks of verbal violence through the internet and the various forums of digital communication. Even in Catholic media, limits can be overstepped, defamation and slander can become commonplace, and all ethical standards and respect for the good name of others can be abandoned. The result is a dangerous dichotomy, since things can be said there that would be unacceptable in public discourse, and people look to compensate for their own discontent by lashing out at others. It is striking that at times, in claiming to uphold the other commandments, they completely ignore the eighth, which forbids bearing false witness or lying, and ruthlessly vilify others. Here we see how the unguarded tongue, set on fire by hell, sets all things ablaze (cf. Jas 3:6).

I think we could agree that we do not what this Catholic forum to go there.

In this light, is it enough to say: key facts were wrong, others are just conjecture, but he is dirty?
This man who was confirmed as FBI director and reconfirmed for an extended term by unanimous votes of the US Senate.

he knew Bulger was the informant and others told him the men were innocent

Bulger was not the informant. Please check your facts. And these:
Who told Mueller that the men were innocent?
When, precisely, did Mueller oppose the parole?
What were the grounds for that opposition?

 

[dvdjs]

However, the content in this article does raise serious questions about his integrity

This is all about filling in the blanks. Mueller was interim US attorney in Boston for six months and Assistant US attorney in Boston for a few years before. So he clearly must have known all the details about the state trial of nearly twenty years ago; all about the FB operations there including the rogue agents later convicted for their crimes, etc.

I am open to evidence, but that needs to go far beyond Howie’s filling in the blanks.

 

[dvdjs]

If anything, one should always look at whatever any attorney says with some skepticism, since it is their job to be an advocate.

Exactly. Defense attorneys do not like the FBI’s informants who finger their clients.