Mueller's 'Right Hand Man' Represented Hillary Clinton Staffer Who Installed Her Illegal Server

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: luthier

So you're saying the stories are untrue?

I am saying they are purposely manipulating truth. The majority of Mueller lawyers did not donate to Clinton and the fact a few did is irrelevant.

Sounds like Mueller took care of the biased people he is aware of.

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Grambler

How? If this guy was the lawyer in charge of defending the guy who set up clintons server. a person under investigation in the Hillary email case, how is that different than a person charged with defending trump now investigating Hillary in a new investigation of her?

The guy worked for a private law firm. He was not a Clinton Lawyer. You said, specifically, "Trump's Lawyer", which would indicate they work directly for Trump and that is not the same as this case.

The guy in question did not work directly for Clinton.

Ok so if it was Flynn lawyer, or Manaforts, or Don jrs. that would be ok then?

Just not trumps personal lawyer.

If they were a private lawyer retained to defend them in an unrelated issue, and were later appointed to a position within the JD, I would not have a problem with that. Only when there is evidence of wrongdoing in their job should we be concerned.

Again, this issue relies on people's nature emotional reaction to an appearance of impropriety.

a reply to: luthier

The question is why we're so many biased people on the team.

originally posted by: Perfectenemy

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Perfectenemy

Yeah right. If Mueller had stacked his team with Pro-Trump people or people that are affiliated with him we would for sure here the same complains about it being biased. It's called conflict of interest.

Stacked his team with pro-Trump people?

Well, that would indicate there was a concerted effort to "stack the deck".

Do we have any evidence of such a thing occurring in this case?

Here you go. link to all the lawyers who donated money to Democrats including HRC. That alone is at least suspect.

Donated money to Dems? Does that prove they are unable to do their job properly?

That really doesn't prove anything in relation to this issue.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Ask the doj. They did the back round test.

Because there are only so many lawyers of this caliber..

a reply to: Grambler

Justin Cooper is the one who registered the Clinton email domain. It looks like Zebley is Mueller's former chief of staff at the FBI and he joined WilmerHale in March of 2014.

I don't know if this constitutes a conflict of interest or not. It certainly doesn't in the traditional sense unless the investigation in some way involves Cooper.

The thinking seems to be that Clinton is the anti-Trump and so having even a tangential connection to Clinton is anti-Trump and therefore precludes a person from participating in an investigation involving Trump. I just saw a Fox News clip where the person said, "It appears that the whole team has their thumb on the scale to tip it toward Hillary and away from Trump."

Consider the Manafort case. How is this related? Is this Justin Cooper vs Paul Manafort? Hillary Clinton vs Paul Manfort? No, it's the United States vs Paul Manafort. Do either Justin Cooper or Hillary Clinton stand to benefit from Paul Manafort being prosecuted? What about Flynn? Does Flynn pleading guilty benefit Justin Cooper in some way? How about Clinton?

In what way? Hillary Clinton gets bragging rights on Twitter? I would think the real problem here is that there's a revolving door between the FBI and private law firms but I don't know that even that's really anything. Former prosecutors become defense attorneys. Is it a conflict of interest if the defense attorney is representing a client in a case being prosecuted by his former office?

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: luthier

So you're saying the stories are untrue?

I am saying they are purposely manipulating truth. The majority of Mueller lawyers did not donate to Clinton and the fact a few did is irrelevant.

Sounds like Mueller took care of the biased people he is aware of.

But some damage has already been done. There already is two different outcomes for the same crime due to bias.

originally posted by: Gargamel

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: introvert

The fact so many have obvious anti Trump red flags. Either it was intentional or it was gross incompetence in vetting.

Or perhaps people's personal political opinions have no bearing on their ability to do their job. If it does, they root em out, as it appears Mueller has done.

They cannot bring political bias to the court of law. They can only bring evidence, legal precedence and rule of law.

So the political bias argument really makes no sense. It would not help in prosecuting anyone.

So how can you explain person A and B who lied to the FBI and had no consequences and person C who lied to the FBI is being charged? If all things were equal in the investigations would the outcome not be the same for the same crime?

Depends on the context of those particular situations.

That alone is not proof.

originally posted by: Gargamel

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: luthier

So you're saying the stories are untrue?

I am saying they are purposely manipulating truth. The majority of Mueller lawyers did not donate to Clinton and the fact a few did is irrelevant.

Sounds like Mueller took care of the biased people he is aware of.

But some damage has already been done. There already is two different outcomes for the same crime due to bias.

That's an opinion based on information given through the media.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Grambler

How? If this guy was the lawyer in charge of defending the guy who set up clintons server. a person under investigation in the Hillary email case, how is that different than a person charged with defending trump now investigating Hillary in a new investigation of her?

The guy worked for a private law firm. He was not a Clinton Lawyer. You said, specifically, "Trump's Lawyer", which would indicate they work directly for Trump and that is not the same as this case.

The guy in question did not work directly for Clinton.

Ok so if it was Flynn lawyer, or Manaforts, or Don jrs. that would be ok then?

Just not trumps personal lawyer.

If they were a private lawyer retained to defend them in an unrelated issue, and were later appointed to a position within the JD, I would not have a problem with that. Only when there is evidence of wrongdoing in their job should we be concerned.

Again, this issue relies on people's nature emotional reaction to an appearance of impropriety.

Unrelated?

He defended the guy that set up the server that was being investigated in the hillary email investigation.

How is that unrelated?

Its real simple, a guy that defended someone targeted in the hillary investigation is now an important investigator in the investigation of trumps team.

This is claerly a conflict of interest if true.

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: Perfectenemy

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: Grambler

Something is wrong with Jeff sessions. He's not helping Roy Moore in Alabama even though it would be good for him to go there. And despite all the mounting evidence he is not call for a special counsel to investigate everything related to Hillary Lynch Comey Etc.

I'm not sure if he is doing nothing at all. After all the leaks i would be very careful to keep any other investigations under wraps. It's eerily quiet on the Awan and DWS front. I still think that's a good sign.

It's fascinating that there is so much talk out there about Bob Mueller working with President Trump, and that manafort and Flynn were necessary sacrifices to make the cover story believable.

That's still on the table of course. There are some clues and some leaks appear just too perfectly timed for my liking. Flynn's plea deal alone revealed a whole new can of maggots. I'm sticking to my own theory though. All of this wasn't just conjured out of thin air over night. I think this plan was hatched years ago. MegaAnon said that we are entering a very critical phase. I guess time will tell.

a reply to: seeker1963

Yes! Ive overheard a person earlier this week at the store say that the court of public opinion is "real democracy", the outcry is just like instant voting...

My stomach turned, and I wouldnt know where to begin even if I knew the guy who ship that out of his mouth.

Funny how all the same players who have covered for Hillary's misdeeds keep coming up over and over again with each new cover up job.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Gargamel

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: introvert

The fact so many have obvious anti Trump red flags. Either it was intentional or it was gross incompetence in vetting.

Or perhaps people's personal political opinions have no bearing on their ability to do their job. If it does, they root em out, as it appears Mueller has done.

They cannot bring political bias to the court of law. They can only bring evidence, legal precedence and rule of law.

So the political bias argument really makes no sense. It would not help in prosecuting anyone.

So how can you explain person A and B who lied to the FBI and had no consequences and person C who lied to the FBI is being charged? If all things were equal in the investigations would the outcome not be the same for the same crime?

Depends on the context of those particular situations.

That alone is not proof.

I would agree but in all these instances the context is exactly the same. They all lied to the FBI while being interviewed.

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Gargamel

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: luthier

So you're saying the stories are untrue?

I am saying they are purposely manipulating truth. The majority of Mueller lawyers did not donate to Clinton and the fact a few did is irrelevant.

Sounds like Mueller took care of the biased people he is aware of.

But some damage has already been done. There already is two different outcomes for the same crime due to bias.

That's an opinion based on information given through the media.

That's an opinion based on the documented fact that all three lied to the FBI during interviews.

a reply to: theantediluvian

What was the main claim as to what Muellers investigation was about?

Trump working with russians to steal the election.

The biggest claim of russians interfering in the election was them supposedly hacking DNC emails to hurt hillary.

Si in a snese, the people most hurt by the russians would have been hillarys team.

Everyone knows that is the case; if Trump worked with russians or russians influenced then hillary was the victim.

So what we have now is a person that defended Hillarys team member about the investigation into her case, and is now investigating the case into hillarys team being victims of Russian influence.

That is a conflict of interest.

Again, how would this be any different than having Flynn and Manafort and Don Jr.s lawyers be the ones in charge of a renewed investigation into Hillarys emails?

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Gargamel

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: luthier

So you're saying the stories are untrue?

I am saying they are purposely manipulating truth. The majority of Mueller lawyers did not donate to Clinton and the fact a few did is irrelevant.

Sounds like Mueller took care of the biased people he is aware of.

But some damage has already been done. There already is two different outcomes for the same crime due to bias.

That's an opinion based on information given through the media.

So, its still factual info.

Strzok notes and Mills and Humas own emails show that they lied to the FBI, and yet they werent charged.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: Grambler

He defended the guy that set up the server that was being investigated in the hillary email investigation.

How is that unrelated?

How is that related to Trump and his team's actions?

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: luthier

So you're saying the stories are untrue?

I am saying they are purposely manipulating truth. The majority of Mueller lawyers did not donate to Clinton and the fact a few did is irrelevant.

Sounds like Mueller took care of the biased people he is aware of.

I'm still waiting for a plausible explanation why Peter Strzok got quietly demoted and why the FBI stonewalled the House Intel Committee for months now. It sure looks like the SC are hiding something major and they don't want people to know about it. They even tried to discredit Nunes and failed. This doesn't exactly scream everything is still done by the book to me.

They sure are digging up a lot of stuff on this bunch. The FBI seems to be in the Democrats pocket, maybe we should be investigating the assets and income of the high ranking FBI people.

Maybe we should be bringing up charges against Meullers right hand man for not saying he has ties with the Democratic party which should cause him from being ineligible from working on this investigation.