It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 4
63
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 8 2017 @ 03:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gargamel

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.


Ok. Sure.

Still not sure how that relates to this issue.




posted on Dec, 8 2017 @ 03:59 PM
link   
a reply to: rickymouse



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.


What crime would he be charged with?



posted on Dec, 8 2017 @ 04:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
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?


Trump is accused of working with russians to hurt hillary in the election.

This man defended hillarys team in the investigation into her.

Its cut and dry.

But again, this means you would have no problem with Flynn or manaforts lawyers investigating Hillary.

Hell even trups personal lawyers should be allowed to, right?

What did hillarys email have to do with anything trump is accised of.

So lets let Trumps lawyer sekulow investigate hillarys emails, and Uranium one, and the clinton foundation.

Thats all fine right, because none of those have anything to do with Trumps case,



posted on Dec, 8 2017 @ 04:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler



Trump is accused of working with russians to hurt hillary in the election. This man defended hillarys team in the investigation into her.


I had not seen he defended Hillary's team. Only one person, in relation to the server.

What does the email server have to do with Trump?



But again, this means you would have no problem with Flynn or manaforts lawyers investigating Hillary. Hell even trups personal lawyers should be allowed to, right? What did hillarys email have to do with anything trump is accised of. So lets let Trumps lawyer sekulow investigate hillarys emails, and Uranium one, and the clinton foundation. Thats all fine right, because none of those have anything to do with Trumps case,


If they were appointed to the JD, sure. Let em investigate.

If they are Trump's personal lawyer, no.

That is the false equivalency I was talking about earlier.



posted on Dec, 8 2017 @ 04:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Grambler



Trump is accused of working with russians to hurt hillary in the election. This man defended hillarys team in the investigation into her.


I had not seen he defended Hillary's team. Only one person, in relation to the server.

What does the email server have to do with Trump?



But again, this means you would have no problem with Flynn or manaforts lawyers investigating Hillary. Hell even trups personal lawyers should be allowed to, right? What did hillarys email have to do with anything trump is accised of. So lets let Trumps lawyer sekulow investigate hillarys emails, and Uranium one, and the clinton foundation. Thats all fine right, because none of those have anything to do with Trumps case,


If they were appointed to the JD, sure. Let em investigate.

If they are Trump's personal lawyer, no.

That is the false equivalency I was talking about earlier.


Why wouldnt trumps personal lawyer be allowed?

What does Donald Trump have anything to do with Hillarys email server.

Her server was being used well before Trump was even running.

So what would the conflict be?



posted on Dec, 8 2017 @ 04:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: introvert
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?


Trump is accused of working with russians to hurt hillary in the election.

This man defended hillarys team in the investigation into her.

Its cut and dry.

But again, this means you would have no problem with Flynn or manaforts lawyers investigating Hillary.

Hell even trups personal lawyers should be allowed to, right?

What did hillarys email have to do with anything trump is accised of.

So lets let Trumps lawyer sekulow investigate hillarys emails, and Uranium one, and the clinton foundation.

Thats all fine right, because none of those have anything to do with Trumps case,



The DOJ which ok'd Aaron was aware of this..

Funny how it became a concern once the case was taking shape and indictments were happening.



posted on Dec, 8 2017 @ 04:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Grambler



Trump is accused of working with russians to hurt hillary in the election. This man defended hillarys team in the investigation into her.


I had not seen he defended Hillary's team. Only one person, in relation to the server.

What does the email server have to do with Trump?



But again, this means you would have no problem with Flynn or manaforts lawyers investigating Hillary. Hell even trups personal lawyers should be allowed to, right? What did hillarys email have to do with anything trump is accised of. So lets let Trumps lawyer sekulow investigate hillarys emails, and Uranium one, and the clinton foundation. Thats all fine right, because none of those have anything to do with Trumps case,


If they were appointed to the JD, sure. Let em investigate.

If they are Trump's personal lawyer, no.

That is the false equivalency I was talking about earlier.


Why wouldnt trumps personal lawyer be allowed?

What does Donald Trump have anything to do with Hillarys email server.

Her server was being used well before Trump was even running.

So what would the conflict be?


If the lawyer is Trump's personal lawyer, they would not work for the Justice Department.

In that case, they have no place being involved whatsoever.

Again, not similar to this case and a false equivalency.



posted on Dec, 8 2017 @ 04:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler




posted on Dec, 8 2017 @ 04:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Gargamel

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.


Ok. Sure.

Still not sure how that relates to this issue.


It relates to the issue of bias within the investigative team effecting the outcomes.



posted on Dec, 8 2017 @ 04:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Grambler



Trump is accused of working with russians to hurt hillary in the election. This man defended hillarys team in the investigation into her.


I had not seen he defended Hillary's team. Only one person, in relation to the server.

What does the email server have to do with Trump?



But again, this means you would have no problem with Flynn or manaforts lawyers investigating Hillary. Hell even trups personal lawyers should be allowed to, right? What did hillarys email have to do with anything trump is accised of. So lets let Trumps lawyer sekulow investigate hillarys emails, and Uranium one, and the clinton foundation. Thats all fine right, because none of those have anything to do with Trumps case,


If they were appointed to the JD, sure. Let em investigate.

If they are Trump's personal lawyer, no.

That is the false equivalency I was talking about earlier.


Why wouldnt trumps personal lawyer be allowed?

What does Donald Trump have anything to do with Hillarys email server.

Her server was being used well before Trump was even running.

So what would the conflict be?


If the lawyer is Trump's personal lawyer, they would not work for the Justice Department.

In that case, they have no place being involved whatsoever.

Again, not similar to this case and a false equivalency.


Now you are shifting arguments.

Are all of Muellers team members of the justice department?

Is there a law that says special prosecutors can only hire Justice department members to work a case?

But ok so one of Trump lawyers get hired by the justice department in the next few months.

Then he becomes the right hand man of a special prosecutor into hillarys emails.

What is the problem with this?

You would be fine with it I assume.



posted on Dec, 8 2017 @ 04:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gargamel

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Gargamel

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.


Ok. Sure.

Still not sure how that relates to this issue.


It relates to the issue of bias within the investigative team effecting the outcomes.


Ok. Is there any evidence that has occurred in this case?



posted on Dec, 8 2017 @ 04:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Gargamel

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Gargamel

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.


Ok. Sure.

Still not sure how that relates to this issue.


It relates to the issue of bias within the investigative team effecting the outcomes.


Ok. Is there any evidence that has occurred in this case?


Well for starters we know people on Trumps team have been charged with the exact same crimes that people on hillarys team committed but were not charged with; lying to the FBI.



posted on Dec, 8 2017 @ 04:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler



Now you are shifting arguments.


No, I have not shifted arguments.

You have in order to somehow justify the false equivalency.



Are all of Muellers team members of the justice department?


Yes, by definition.



Is there a law that says special prosecutors can only hire Justice department members to work a case?


Not that I know of, but once they join the team, they work for the JD.



But ok so one of Trump lawyers get hired by the justice department in the next few months. Then he becomes the right hand man of a special prosecutor into hillarys emails. What is the problem with this? You would be fine with it I assume.


Sure. I would have no reason to doubt their ability or intent to do their job properly.

If evidence to the contrary is provided, then we go from there.



posted on Dec, 8 2017 @ 04:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Gargamel

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Gargamel

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.


Ok. Sure.

Still not sure how that relates to this issue.


It relates to the issue of bias within the investigative team effecting the outcomes.


Ok. Is there any evidence that has occurred in this case?


Well for starters we know people on Trumps team have been charged with the exact same crimes that people on hillarys team committed but were not charged with; lying to the FBI.


And I believe that is being addressed, correct?



posted on Dec, 8 2017 @ 04:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Grambler



Now you are shifting arguments.


No, I have not shifted arguments.

You have in order to somehow justify the false equivalency.



Are all of Muellers team members of the justice department?


Yes, by definition.



Is there a law that says special prosecutors can only hire Justice department members to work a case?


Not that I know of, but once they join the team, they work for the JD.



But ok so one of Trump lawyers get hired by the justice department in the next few months. Then he becomes the right hand man of a special prosecutor into hillarys emails. What is the problem with this? You would be fine with it I assume.


Sure. I would have no reason to doubt their ability or intent to do their job properly.

If evidence to the contrary is provided, then we go from there.


Ok then you have changed and now admit Trumps lawyers should be allowed to investigate Hillary.

Thats fine, and at least you are honest about that.

I would be stringly against Trumps lawyer being allowed to be involved into the investigation into hillary because of a conflict of interest.

The same with allowing lawyers for hillarys team to investigate Trump.



posted on Dec, 8 2017 @ 04:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler



Ok then you have changed and now admit Trumps lawyers should be allowed to investigate Hillary. Thats fine, and at least you are honest about that.


Well, that's dishonest of you. I did not say that. You said if one of them got hired by the JD.

I agree with that and that is predicated on the idea that they are no longer Trump's personal lawyer.



I would be stringly against Trumps lawyer being allowed to be involved into the investigation into hillary because of a conflict of interest.


As long as they are doing thier job and do not work for Trump personally, what is the problem?



The same with allowing lawyers for hillarys team to investigate Trump.


Apparently Trump's DoJ thought it was ok.



posted on Dec, 8 2017 @ 04:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Gargamel

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Gargamel

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.


Ok. Sure.

Still not sure how that relates to this issue.


It relates to the issue of bias within the investigative team effecting the outcomes.


Ok. Is there any evidence that has occurred in this case?


Well for starters we know people on Trumps team have been charged with the exact same crimes that people on hillarys team committed but were not charged with; lying to the FBI.


And I believe that is being addressed, correct?


How so?

Look i am with you that having a bias for Hillary should not be a reason alone to kick someone off of the mueller team.

Like you say, we would also need to see evidence that there is some sort of shanigans or double standard going on.

And we see that is infact the case.

We have the biased messages, the fact that one of muellers top guys was at Hillarys election night party, the fact that one was apparently defending a hillary team member that was targeted in the email case as his lawyer.

In addition to that we have.

1. The FBI and Muellers team stonewalling congressional oversight committes on requested info, which they are legally required to give.

2. Leaks from the FBI and muellers team desgined to hurt trump.

3. The investigators charging Trumps team with the same crimes they let hillarys team off on.

This is more than just potential bias; we are seeing actual harm in the form of the three things mentioned above.




edit on 8-12-2017 by Grambler because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 8 2017 @ 04:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler



Look i am with you that having a bias for Hillary should be a reason alone to kick someone off of the mueller team.


I did not say that.



This is more than just potential bias; we are seeing actual harm in the form of the three things mentioned above.


Again, it is being addressed.

What we do not need to do is concoct conspiracies based on the appearance of impropriety and wait until real evidence is presented until we go ape#.

It appears what you and others are doing is putting the cart before the horse.



posted on Dec, 8 2017 @ 04:35 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

In fairness to you, I acknowledge that this guy to my knowledge is not still Coppers personal lawyer, so you are right that would make it much worse.

But yes, in my example, I would not want a former personal lawyer for trump that was defending him in charges in muellers or the fbi investigation then neing a key figure into the investigation of hillary.

It is still a conflict of interest, and I assure you I would be very much against that.

Just like I am against Zebley who was a lawyer defending one of Hillarys team in the email investigation being involved into the trump investigation.



posted on Dec, 8 2017 @ 04:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler



It is still a conflict of interest, and I assure you I would be very much against that.


I do not find it a conflict of interest if they went through the DoJ selection process and they do their job.




top topics



 
63
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join