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

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Grambler

I also heard the Jimmie Johns they used for take out delivered to Clinton's campaign.

Not exactly sure the relevance other than obviously being a high level lawyer familiar with federal procedure and courts. He was hired and paid I assume. If not then there could be some issue.

Yep, I am sure then if there is another rinvestiogation of hillary, and trumps lawyers are put in charge of investigating her, you will say that is just fine.

That's a false equivalency compared to this case.

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Grambler

I also heard the Jimmie Johns they used for take out delivered to Clinton's campaign.

Not exactly sure the relevance other than obviously being a high level lawyer familiar with federal procedure and courts. He was hired and paid I assume. If not then there could be some issue.

Yep, I am sure then if there is another rinvestiogation of hillary, and trumps lawyers are put in charge of investigating her, you will say that is just fine.

I would be just fine yes. They have to compile a case and present it, it's not judge dread. Often these lawyers cross political Ines constantly and try large cases in federal courts. For all I know the guy also defended Oliver north.

Now if he was bribeing judges and falsifying evidence or donating all his services to a politician I would have a problem.

I am not sure this was a personal lawyer for Clinton but I haven't looked into it deeply. I just know the more Mueller stories come out the more these "revelations" of his credibility come out.

Mueller was the best guy in the world even Newt thought so and the when he started putting his case together it all changed..

To me that is a bigger red flag then a lawyer who worked on high profile cases. Lawyers are hired. They aren't the individual.

a reply to: Grambler

It's just a coincidence........right.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Grambler

I also heard the Jimmie Johns they used for take out delivered to Clinton's campaign.

Not exactly sure the relevance other than obviously being a high level lawyer familiar with federal procedure and courts. He was hired and paid I assume. If not then there could be some issue.

I know you're being facetious, but the premise you speak of still remains.

Many of the people in DC are connected in many potential ways.

That is why people who publish stories such like this, and the OP's that are created from them, should have a sense of responsibility to offer proper and complete context, and not rely on the appearance of impropriety to push a political narrative.

Just because this person represented someone connected to Clinton does not mean they are compromised in any way, nor the investigation. That being said, we should also be open to any real evidence if there has been some shenanigans.

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.

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.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Grambler

I also heard the Jimmie Johns they used for take out delivered to Clinton's campaign.

Not exactly sure the relevance other than obviously being a high level lawyer familiar with federal procedure and courts. He was hired and paid I assume. If not then there could be some issue.

Yep, I am sure then if there is another rinvestiogation of hillary, and trumps lawyers are put in charge of investigating her, you will say that is just fine.

That's a false equivalency compared to this case.

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?

a reply to: AndyFromMichigan

are they their to cover information found about Democrats or the Deep State ?

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

The vetting is done by the doj. Which is trumps cabinet.

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.

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.

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.

a reply to: Grambler

The lawyers need to present evidence they can't prosecute something that isn't there.

The doj vets all Mueller team and it's monitored by the doj and several committees all republican.

Are you willing to admit these may be stories that come out every time Mueller releases info to throw shade?

a reply to: luthier

So you're saying the stories are untrue?

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?

a reply to: Gargamel

Exactly the question I asked.