Former Mueller Team Member Says Special Counsel Had 'Get Trump' Attitude

Trumps DOJ ? You left that part out

 

I suppose that this could actually be considered libel....

 

No...because it was Comey who told Obama and Biden taht in 2016.

Powell wrote that the notes show that “Director Comey himself and the highest levels of the Obama Administration had the transcripts of Flynn’s phone calls with officials of other countries and knew General Flynn’s calls were lawful and proper.”
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/strzok-comey-obama-biden-flynn-case

https://news.yahoo.com/comey-told-obama-flynn-conversations-154702223.html

Strzok writes that “P,” presumably President Obama, asked, “Is there anything I shouldn’t be telling transition team?”

Strzok records that “D,” or Director Comey, responded “Kislyak calls but appear legit.”

 

Former Mueller Team Member Says Special Counsel Had 'Get Trump' Attitude

As it should be I guess. That is what they were being paid to do.

 

Concord case wasn’t about hacking. The Russian hackers are still under indictment.

 

...and a stellar history of success in that area.

But the other comment worth making is the fact that now Trump supporters think that FBI members are trustworthy. All whistleblowers or people who have worked with Trump have come out against him - but they're all butthurt hacks. Now, one Mueller team member comes out with a sniff of something negative and it is gospel!

 

It was precisely about the hacking. The only other indictment you could possibly be referring to is the one from Mueller/Rosenstein that has zero shot at becoming anything.

 

Concord was completely unrelated to the hacking. It’s been dropped.
The indictment of the hackers still stands.

 

'sniff of something negative'. Try as you might to downplay it, it can't be downplayed. It's substantial evidence that would make prosecuting Trump with Crossfire Hurricane nearly impossible.

The manifest bias is overwhelmingly clear and taints any such trial.

 

It stands like Neville Chamberlain's peace in our time. ROFL

 

So much for “no russkies.”

 

Outside this bubble of joy, the real world doesn't really give a poop about much of it.. You know, the folks that toddle off to work everyday, come home for a few cocktails, play with the children and then the box they came in. Sleep six hours and then hit the same gong again..

 

Perhaps I'm missing something. Isn't this substantial information the word of one individual?

 

See, here's the thing: An indictment is a complaint. Now how it normally works is that I can plea guilty or not guilty and if I plea not guilty, the case moves to trial.

Said Ruskies aren't in jurdisction though, so we can't charge them or more importantly prove the validity of the case.

This might be the only case in US History where the DOJ actively refuses to prove its case.

 

Actively? Being unable to extradite someone doesn’t mean it doesn’t count. We didn’t extradite bin laden either lol

 

Yes, an individual under oath. He's sworn to his testimony under disposition. If he lied, the DOJ would give him the Stone treatment.

 

Pretty sure that the Bush Administration went through the UN. Something that Obama was doing less and less towards his final days in office.

The DOJ could easily resolve my concerns. According to Kerri Kupec they have public record evidence. Great, let's see it. The AG should give us a full detailing of the case.

 

What will matter is what Durham thinks.

 

Just remember folks, Donald Trump was supposed to be an agent of a foreign power or blackmailed somehow by the Russians.

The lie of the century wasn't true. Heads should roll but maybe the best they get is to be some "analyst" for our brought and paid for plutocratic media.

 

Hmmmm...plenty people testified under oath in the impeachment trial - but they were discounted by Trump supporters as liars and hacks.

 

Some were, the issue was was it an impeachable offense, no. Heck, your side wants to impeach Trump for nominating a SCOTUS justice. Crazy....

 

You can read the indictment, but chose not to

 

They want to "impeach" Trump to attempt to delay the process... Nobody would support a real impeachment for that, even though that hypocrisy is yet another nail in the R coffin of 2020.

 

We aren't talking about impeachment. We're talking about 'under oath' statements. You can't poo poo them when you don't like what is said, then stand behind them when you do like the content.

 

What is crazy is equating a part of a conversation with a foreign leader with unelected government employees misusing their power to deny civil rights to political opponents in a soft coup attempt.