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

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?

So far we know most of Mueller's picks were Democratic supporters.

Name one person on Mueller's team that we know donated to Trump or Republicans?

The defense rests........

originally posted by: introvert
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.

I editted it, it should have said "not be".

Again, how is it being adressed.

Has Zelbey and Weissman been kicked off of the investigation?

Has anyone been charged with leaking from Muellers team or the FBI?

Has the FBI reopened the investigation into Hillary?

Has Muellers team or the FBI agreed to hand everything over to the congressional oversight committees that was asked for?

Has Mueller explained why he picked people that had such questionable connections to Hillarys team?

What do you mean it is being addressed?

originally posted by: pavil

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?

So far we know most of Mueller's picks were Democratic supporters.

Name one person on Mueller's team that we know donated to Trump or Republicans?

The defense rests........

What part of the rule of law or the gravity of the evidence is dependent upon the political beliefs of the investigators?

Everyone has their personal beliefs. If we excluded people because of their political beliefs, we would not have a JD whatsoever.

originally posted by: introvert
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.

Ok but what if leaks start coming out to hurt Hillary from their investigation, and they refuse to give congressional oversight committees info they want, and they end up charging Hillarys team for crimes that the left trumps team off of the hook for.

That doesnt seem like they are just doing their job, yet that is what we are seeing with the FBI and muellers team now.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: pavil

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?

So far we know most of Mueller's picks were Democratic supporters.

Name one person on Mueller's team that we know donated to Trump or Republicans?

The defense rests........

What part of the rule of law or the gravity of the evidence is dependent upon the political beliefs of the investigators?

Everyone has their personal beliefs. If we excluded people because of their political beliefs, we would not have a JD whatsoever.

Yes, but when we see people with biases that just so happen to allow the side they are biased for to lie to the FBI and not charge them, but then charge the side they are biased against with that exact crime, it becomes a serious matter.

In addition to the leaks against the side they are biased against, and the stonewalling of oversight committees.

originally posted by: pavil

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?

So far we know most of Mueller's picks were Democratic supporters.

Name one person on Mueller's team that we know donated to Trump or Republicans?

The defense rests........

There were republican donors at least one. And no most were not democratic donors. (6 of 18 1/3)

In any case it doesn't really matter. The DOJ and Trumps picks ok'd the team.

a reply to: Grambler

You all have misplaced anger.

Direct it to your current DOJ.
Responsible for the confirmation of Mueller's team as well as prosecuting Clinton.

a reply to: Grambler

Well the direct victims of the Russian hacking are the DNC/staffers and John Podesta. I get your point about Clinton ultimately being the victim but I honestly don't know how that would work in terms of the US legal system. It's a very unique circumstance.

Can you be the victim of a crime committed against somebody else? I don't think so criminally but maybe you could claim damages in a civil suit. There's a few examples of I can think of there.

But let's just gloss over all that and stipulate that the crime is "meddling" and the victim is Clinton. Is Trump the co-defendant? Well no, because he hasn't been charged with anything. It's gets really confusing though because on top of everything else, there's an independent counsel in this matter.

I'm struggling to come up with a comparable situation. (honestly, not bull# for rhetorical purposes)

Was John Cooper charged with a crime? Was he even at risk of being charged with a crime? The only way this could really work towards being a conflict of interest is if you see Cooper as Clinton's cohort but even then, she was never charged let alone prosecuted.

And that's all talking about Trump. What would that have to do with Manafort or Flynn? I think if you take politics out of the equation, there's no way this adds up to conflict of interest for anyone ever.

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?

That's an interesting question. I've been mulling it over for a few minutes. I think one obvious difference is that John Cooper was never charged with anything. I'm not sure he was even alleged to have personally done anything illegal. Also, Flynn, Manafort and Don Jr have all made very public comments about Hillary Clinton, including leading chants of "Lock her up." Has John Cooper ever done anything even remotely comparable?

You make it sound like Cheryl Mills is leading an investigation into Trump.

So let's tweak that question a little bit. Let's go with somebody who is at least more comparable. How about Hope Hicks? She's going to be questioned by Mueller and I'm sure she'll have an attorney, right? She's also talked of as being one of the most loyal to Trump. Now let's assume her lawyer is an ex-FBI agent/DOJ lawyer.

Would I have a problem with that lawyer being part of an investigation into Hillary Clinton's email server? No, I would not have a serious problem with that. Would I want him to be the judge? Probably less so. Would I want him on the jury if something went to trial? Absolutely not.

Would people from Clinton's camp cry foul? Probably but that's politics.

a reply to: theantediluvian

Yes but you are taliking about legalties at the top here.

Nunes was cleared by the ethics committee and is not being charged with any crime, so why do you have a problem with his involvement.

Copper was investigated for his setting up of the server.

This is no different than someone like Papadopolous being investigated in the Trump case. Had cooper lied, he would have been charged.

He was being investigated for his part in an alleged crime, as was combetta and other tech guys.

Yes, I would have a problem with Hope hicks lawyer being a big platyer in an investigation of Hillary.

a reply to: theantediluvian

Well the direct victims of the Russian hacking are the DNC/staffers and John Podesta.

Let me stop you right there, the DNC may or may not have been hacked but Podesta certainly was not.

He was phished and fell victim to the attempt due to a typo made by one of his staff members.

March 19, 2016 - Clinton campaign manager, John Podesta receives a phishing email masked as an alert from Google that another user had tried to access his account. It contains a link to a page where Podesta can change his password. He shares the email with a staffer from the campaign's help desk. The staffer replies with a typo - instead of typing "This is an illegitimate email," the staffer types "This is a legitimate email." Podesta follows the instructions and types a new password, allowing hackers to access his emails.

CNN timelines of DNC hack

I mean, come on. That's a pretty stupid mistake to have made.

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
a reply to: theantediluvian

Well the direct victims of the Russian hacking are the DNC/staffers and John Podesta.

Let me stop you right there, the DNC may or may not have been hacked but Podesta certainly was not.

He was phished and fell victim to the attempt due to a typo made by one of his staff members.

March 19, 2016 - Clinton campaign manager, John Podesta receives a phishing email masked as an alert from Google that another user had tried to access his account. It contains a link to a page where Podesta can change his password. He shares the email with a staffer from the campaign's help desk. The staffer replies with a typo - instead of typing "This is an illegitimate email," the staffer types "This is a legitimate email." Podesta follows the instructions and types a new password, allowing hackers to access his emails.

CNN timelines of DNC hack

I mean, come on. That's a pretty stupid mistake to have made.

Phishing is the most basic form of hacking and the easiest for hackers. I honestly dont know where the phishing isnt hacking things started but I know that the GOP have been using it.

originally posted by: Perfectenemy

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.

Yep hardly believable he was taken off the team for a few obnoxious tweets.

Has to be something really bad.

Like threats or planting evidence in collusion with Mueller and the rest of the team.

Let's all read the tweets.

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: pavil

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?

So far we know most of Mueller's picks were Democratic supporters.

Name one person on Mueller's team that we know donated to Trump or Republicans?

The defense rests........

There were republican donors at least one. And no most were not democratic donors. (6 of 18 1/3)

In any case it doesn't really matter. The DOJ and Trumps picks ok'd the team.

DOJ? You mean Rosenstein? Trump didn't ok any of the team.

Show us where that happened.

Mueller picked them with no oversight. Orr, Rhee and Strozik and this guy is plenty obvious why he wants them.
How about the rest of them? What BS are they hiding?

Surprised Mills is not on his team, was she too busy?

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: introvert
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.

Ok but what if leaks start coming out to hurt Hillary from their investigation, and they refuse to give congressional oversight committees info they want, and they end up charging Hillarys team for crimes that the left trumps team off of the hook for.

That doesnt seem like they are just doing their job, yet that is what we are seeing with the FBI and muellers team now.

I don't think you are making a very good comparison.

The leaks and the congressional matter do not mean much at this point. We do not know where exactly the leaks are coming from and we do not know the exact context in which why they withheld info from the congressional committees.

It would seem reasonable to withhold certain info from the committees if that info is a vital part of the investigation and if they feel the leaks are actually within congress. Nunes comes to mind in that regard.

And As far as charging people connected to Hillary with lying to the FBI, now tha I have looked at it, it appears there is a lot more context to that.

It does appear Hillary's people may have lied to the FBI. But that's it.

In the case of Flynn and others, they did not merely lie to the FBI. They plead guilty to that charge instead of facing even bigger consequences and are cooperating with their investigation as it moves forward.

So we are really not comparing apples to apples.

a reply to: introvert

Papadopalous didn't. So why was he charged?

And let's not forget, we know subpeonaed evidence was destroyed in the Hillary case.

Yet again, no one was charged for that either.

The fact remains, we know Hillary's team lied to the fbi and they were not charged with it, and we know some of the same investigators that decides not to charge her team charged trumps team with that exact crime.

This combined with the bias, the stomewalling, and the leaks shows a clear double standard

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: introvert
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.

Ok but what if leaks start coming out to hurt Hillary from their investigation, and they refuse to give congressional oversight committees info they want, and they end up charging Hillarys team for crimes that the left trumps team off of the hook for.

That doesnt seem like they are just doing their job, yet that is what we are seeing with the FBI and muellers team now.

I don't think you are making a very good comparison.
......

It does appear Hillary's people may have lied to the FBI. But that's it.

Really? Nice to see there isn't a double standard and that the law applies to everyone equally.

It's ok, Sounds like the IG is taking care of some of this which will reopen other parts of this case again without a finger on the scale.

a reply to: Grambler

Papadopalous didn't. So why was he charged?

Didn't what? He made a plea deal to the charge and is cooperating with investigation.

And let's not forget, we know subpeonaed evidence was destroyed in the Hillary case. Yet again, no one was charged for that either.

But it was investigated. What they found is that no one did it on purpose and no one was ordered to do so.

The FBI’s investigation did find several thousand emails among those deleted that were work-related and should have been turned over to the State Department. However, FBI Director James Comey said in a July 2016 statement that the FBI investigation "found no evidence that any of the additional work-related emails were intentionally deleted in an effort to conceal them."

Comey added in a later congressional hearing that the FBI learned no one on Clinton’s staff specifically asked the employee to delete the emails following the New York Times story and subpoena. Rather, the employee made that decision on his own.

www.politifact.com...

Again, you have to provide proper context before you simply just say things, trying to push a narrative based solely on the appearance of impropriety.

If no order was given, no intent was found indicating they wanted to hide the emails and the employee did it on their own, who are they supposed to charge?

The fact remains, we know Hillary's team lied to the fbi and they were not charged with it, and we know some of the same investigators that decides not to charge her team charged trumps team with that exact crime.

Again, not a good comparison. They were charged with lying due to their agreeing to lesser charges and in exchange for their cooperation in the investigation.

That means they are going after bigger crimes...bigger fish. Apparently, there were no bigger fish to fry in the Clinton case.

This combined with the bias, the stomewalling, and the leaks shows a clear double standard

No. It shows you have a difficult time understanding the differences that make the cases different.

Again, you don't know where the leaks came from and it appears the JD/FBI has been working with congress for some time. The calls of stonewalling appear to be a political talking point that the JD has refuted.

www.cnn.com...

originally posted by: pavil

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: introvert
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.

Ok but what if leaks start coming out to hurt Hillary from their investigation, and they refuse to give congressional oversight committees info they want, and they end up charging Hillarys team for crimes that the left trumps team off of the hook for.

That doesnt seem like they are just doing their job, yet that is what we are seeing with the FBI and muellers team now.

I don't think you are making a very good comparison.
......

It does appear Hillary's people may have lied to the FBI. But that's it.

Really? Nice to see there isn't a double standard and that the law applies to everyone equally.

It's ok, Sounds like the IG is taking care of some of this which will reopen other parts of this case again without a finger on the scale.

Again, context and nuance.

Comparing the two cases is not wise, as they are completely different situations.

a reply to: introvert

We got it.

It's ok to let Hillary's team off for lying to the fbi, but not trumps team.

Your spinning for why this is ok is admirable.

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: introvert

We got it.

It's ok to let Hillary's team off for lying to the fbi, but not trumps team.

Your spinning for why this is ok is admirable.

Well, at least you do not refute the fact you were ignorant of the facts in this case.

And let's make this very clear. Members of Trump's team were let off of much bigger charges in a plea deal in which they plead guilty to lying, which is small potatoes in comparison, in exchange for their cooperation in the investigation.

Hillary's people got off for lying to the FBI.

Trump's people got off for possible FARA violations and even possible violations of the Logan Act.

So do you want to continue down this road?