CDZ How can the Mueller witch hunt be considered legit when

[Preacher]

1. Rosenstein KNEW President Trump was considering Mueller for the FBI top post the day before Rosenstein named Mueller the special counsel for the investigation,kind of like he KNEW something no one else did,why not wait for President Trump to name his FBI head BEFORE naming a candidate for the job the special counsel?
2. Comey and Mueller's VERY VERY close relationship,Mueller is one of Comey's kids godfather's,they spent more time together than they did with their wives etc
3.Out of Muellers 17 angry democrats,12 donated to Clinton's campaign and 2 maxed out their donation limits AND he hired Page and Strzok who we now know are liars,unethical,immoral scum who DESPISED President Trump and therefore could not be neutral in their job on the investigation
4.ALL of Mueller's investigators are democrats as stated yet in contrast to Ken Starr's investigation team
A look at voters’ rolls and interviews with members of Starr’s staff indicate that many, if not most, of the lawyers on this investigation are registered Democrats.

The most prominent Democrat was Sam Dash of Watergate fame. He worked for Starr from 1994 through 1997 with a one-year break in between.**

Ray Jahn, who prosecuted Jim McDougal, was a registered Democrat. He testified that he told Starr when he was hired that he hoped to find evidence exonerating Bill Clinton.

Karen Immergut, who questioned Monica Lewinsky, was a longtime Democrat when she went to work for Ken Starr. She re-registered as an independent upon taking that position.

Mark Tuohey was one of Starr’s first hires. At the time, the Washington Post reported:

Tuohey is well-known in local Democratic Party circles. . .He is close to some Clinton administration officials, including Associate Attorney General Jamie S. Gorelick, and last year hosted a party for Attorney General Janet Reno at his Washington home.

The Post added that Tuohey’s selection, and that of two other prosecutors, was intended in part to allay fears that Starr’s investigation would be a partisan affair.

Mueller also not only hired democrat Clinton donors but a lawyer who WORKED for the Clinton foundation!


Ken Starr's investigation and Robert Mueller's — compare and contrast

So leftists how can you OBJECTIVELY claim this is even a LEGIT investigation with all that known? Can ANY leftist even claim its legit from a neutral point of view or will their pure hatred of President Trump and Americans who voted for him cloud their senses? I know the answer of course its been obvious for 2 years here what the answer is.

 

[debbiedowner]

"Former Sen. John Edwards, who sought the Democratic presidential nomination in 2008, was indicted in 2011 in connection with payments made on his behalf by a wealthy campaign donor to keep Edwards’ mistress quiet, which prosecutors argued amounted to illegal campaign contributions."

Sounds exactly the same to me. Just one of the many criminal acts thus far

 

[Preacher]

"Former Sen. John Edwards, who sought the Democratic presidential nomination in 2008, was indicted in 2011 in connection with payments made on his behalf by a wealthy campaign donor to keep Edwards’ mistress quiet, which prosecutors argued amounted to illegal campaign contributions."

Sounds exactly the same to me. Just one of the many criminal acts thus far

Doesn't answer the question AND the "proof" didn't come from a CONVICTED liar.

 

[depotoo]

"Former Sen. John Edwards, who sought the Democratic presidential nomination in 2008, was indicted in 2011 in connection with payments made on his behalf by a wealthy campaign donor to keep Edwards’ mistress quiet, which prosecutors argued amounted to illegal campaign contributions."

Sounds exactly the same to me. Just one of the many criminal acts thus far

Of which he was acquitted.
One big difference, Trump paid for the payments. A campaign donor paid for Edwards.

 

[foggedinn]

It's in the nature of campaign finance laws they are byzantine in nature and, as a practical matter, impossible not to violate. Everyone can be prosecuted for any number of violations in every election.
We boldly proclaim that we are under the role of law when the truth of the rule of politic slaps us in the face every time we turn around. Law is better. Too bad we can't agree on what Law is.

 

[Oddball]

1. Rosenstein KNEW President Trump was considering Mueller for the FBI top post the day before Rosenstein named Mueller the special counsel for the investigation,kind of like he KNEW something no one else did,why not wait for President Trump to name his FBI head BEFORE naming a candidate for the job the special counsel?
2. Comey and Mueller's VERY VERY close relationship,Mueller is one of Comey's kids godfather's,they spent more time together than they did with their wives etc
3.Out of Muellers 17 angry democrats,12 donated to Clinton's campaign and 2 maxed out their donation limits AND he hired Page and Strzok who we now know are liars,unethical,immoral scum who DESPISED President Trump and therefore could not be neutral in their job on the investigation
4.ALL of Mueller's investigators are democrats as stated yet in contrast to Ken Starr's investigation team
A look at voters’ rolls and interviews with members of Starr’s staff indicate that many, if not most, of the lawyers on this investigation are registered Democrats.

The most prominent Democrat was Sam Dash of Watergate fame. He worked for Starr from 1994 through 1997 with a one-year break in between.**

Ray Jahn, who prosecuted Jim McDougal, was a registered Democrat. He testified that he told Starr when he was hired that he hoped to find evidence exonerating Bill Clinton.

Karen Immergut, who questioned Monica Lewinsky, was a longtime Democrat when she went to work for Ken Starr. She re-registered as an independent upon taking that position.

Mark Tuohey was one of Starr’s first hires. At the time, the Washington Post reported:

Tuohey is well-known in local Democratic Party circles. . .He is close to some Clinton administration officials, including Associate Attorney General Jamie S. Gorelick, and last year hosted a party for Attorney General Janet Reno at his Washington home.

The Post added that Tuohey’s selection, and that of two other prosecutors, was intended in part to allay fears that Starr’s investigation would be a partisan affair.

Mueller also not only hired democrat Clinton donors but a lawyer who WORKED for the Clinton foundation!


Ken Starr's investigation and Robert Mueller's — compare and contrast

So leftists how can you OBJECTIVELY claim this is even a LEGIT investigation with all that known? Can ANY leftist even claim its legit from a neutral point of view or will their pure hatred of President Trump and Americans who voted for him cloud their senses? I know the answer of course its been obvious for 2 years here what the answer is.

This is totally (D)ifferent....And if you can't see that, you're obviously a NAZI!!!!

 

[beautress]

1. Rosenstein KNEW President Trump was considering Mueller for the FBI top post the day before Rosenstein named Mueller the special counsel for the investigation,kind of like he KNEW something no one else did,why not wait for President Trump to name his FBI head BEFORE naming a candidate for the job the special counsel?
2. Comey and Mueller's VERY VERY close relationship,Mueller is one of Comey's kids godfather's,they spent more time together than they did with their wives etc
3.Out of Muellers 17 angry democrats,12 donated to Clinton's campaign and 2 maxed out their donation limits AND he hired Page and Strzok who we now know are liars,unethical,immoral scum who DESPISED President Trump and therefore could not be neutral in their job on the investigation
4.ALL of Mueller's investigators are democrats as stated yet in contrast to Ken Starr's investigation team
A look at voters’ rolls and interviews with members of Starr’s staff indicate that many, if not most, of the lawyers on this investigation are registered Democrats.

The most prominent Democrat was Sam Dash of Watergate fame. He worked for Starr from 1994 through 1997 with a one-year break in between.**

Ray Jahn, who prosecuted Jim McDougal, was a registered Democrat. He testified that he told Starr when he was hired that he hoped to find evidence exonerating Bill Clinton.

Karen Immergut, who questioned Monica Lewinsky, was a longtime Democrat when she went to work for Ken Starr. She re-registered as an independent upon taking that position.

Mark Tuohey was one of Starr’s first hires. At the time, the Washington Post reported:

Tuohey is well-known in local Democratic Party circles. . .He is close to some Clinton administration officials, including Associate Attorney General Jamie S. Gorelick, and last year hosted a party for Attorney General Janet Reno at his Washington home.

The Post added that Tuohey’s selection, and that of two other prosecutors, was intended in part to allay fears that Starr’s investigation would be a partisan affair.

Mueller also not only hired democrat Clinton donors but a lawyer who WORKED for the Clinton foundation!


Ken Starr's investigation and Robert Mueller's — compare and contrast

So leftists how can you OBJECTIVELY claim this is even a LEGIT investigation with all that known? Can ANY leftist even claim its legit from a neutral point of view or will their pure hatred of President Trump and Americans who voted for him cloud their senses? I know the answer of course its been obvious for 2 years here what the answer is.

A look at voters’ rolls and interviews with members of Starr’s staff indicate that many, if not most, of the lawyers on this investigation are registered Democrats.
​

Well, Odium, I looked up demographics of lawyers who were Democrats and lawyers who were Republicans. One of your questions deals with why most if not all of the lawyers on this investigation are registered Democrats.

The demographics of trial lawyers is well known, and that is that with Trial Lawyers, 97% of all political spending on their part goes to the Democrat Party.

That's likely the most obvious reason more if not all the lawyers under Mueller's investigation are Democrats. The source is found here:
Democrats are the party of lawyers

 

[BULLDOG]

1. Rosenstein KNEW President Trump was considering Mueller for the FBI top post the day before Rosenstein named Mueller the special counsel for the investigation,kind of like he KNEW something no one else did,why not wait for President Trump to name his FBI head BEFORE naming a candidate for the job the special counsel?
2. Comey and Mueller's VERY VERY close relationship,Mueller is one of Comey's kids godfather's,they spent more time together than they did with their wives etc
3.Out of Muellers 17 angry democrats,12 donated to Clinton's campaign and 2 maxed out their donation limits AND he hired Page and Strzok who we now know are liars,unethical,immoral scum who DESPISED President Trump and therefore could not be neutral in their job on the investigation
4.ALL of Mueller's investigators are democrats as stated yet in contrast to Ken Starr's investigation team
A look at voters’ rolls and interviews with members of Starr’s staff indicate that many, if not most, of the lawyers on this investigation are registered Democrats.

The most prominent Democrat was Sam Dash of Watergate fame. He worked for Starr from 1994 through 1997 with a one-year break in between.**

Ray Jahn, who prosecuted Jim McDougal, was a registered Democrat. He testified that he told Starr when he was hired that he hoped to find evidence exonerating Bill Clinton.

Karen Immergut, who questioned Monica Lewinsky, was a longtime Democrat when she went to work for Ken Starr. She re-registered as an independent upon taking that position.

Mark Tuohey was one of Starr’s first hires. At the time, the Washington Post reported:

Tuohey is well-known in local Democratic Party circles. . .He is close to some Clinton administration officials, including Associate Attorney General Jamie S. Gorelick, and last year hosted a party for Attorney General Janet Reno at his Washington home.

The Post added that Tuohey’s selection, and that of two other prosecutors, was intended in part to allay fears that Starr’s investigation would be a partisan affair.

Mueller also not only hired democrat Clinton donors but a lawyer who WORKED for the Clinton foundation!


Ken Starr's investigation and Robert Mueller's — compare and contrast

So leftists how can you OBJECTIVELY claim this is even a LEGIT investigation with all that known? Can ANY leftist even claim its legit from a neutral point of view or will their pure hatred of President Trump and Americans who voted for him cloud their senses? I know the answer of course its been obvious for 2 years here what the answer is.

Your implication that an investigator's political party determines what he will or will not uncover is just goofy. If that's all you got, then you should go back in the house while adults are talking.

 

[Syriusly]

1. Rosenstein KNEW President Trump was considering Mueller for the FBI top post the day before Rosenstein named Mueller the special counsel for the investigation,kind of like he KNEW something no one else did,why not wait for President Trump to name his FBI head BEFORE naming a candidate for the job the special counsel?
2. Comey and Mueller's VERY VERY close relationship,Mueller is one of Comey's kids godfather's,they spent more time together than they did with their wives etc
3.Out of Muellers 17 angry democrats,12 donated to Clinton's campaign and 2 maxed out their donation limits AND he hired Page and Strzok who we now know are liars,unethical,immoral scum who DESPISED President Trump and therefore could not be neutral in their job on the investigation
4.ALL of Mueller's investigators are democrats as stated yet in contrast to Ken Starr's investigation team
A look at voters’ rolls and interviews with members of Starr’s staff indicate that many, if not most, of the lawyers on this investigation are registered Democrats.

The most prominent Democrat was Sam Dash of Watergate fame. He worked for Starr from 1994 through 1997 with a one-year break in between.**

Ray Jahn, who prosecuted Jim McDougal, was a registered Democrat. He testified that he told Starr when he was hired that he hoped to find evidence exonerating Bill Clinton.

Karen Immergut, who questioned Monica Lewinsky, was a longtime Democrat when she went to work for Ken Starr. She re-registered as an independent upon taking that position.

Mark Tuohey was one of Starr’s first hires. At the time, the Washington Post reported:

Tuohey is well-known in local Democratic Party circles. . .He is close to some Clinton administration officials, including Associate Attorney General Jamie S. Gorelick, and last year hosted a party for Attorney General Janet Reno at his Washington home.

The Post added that Tuohey’s selection, and that of two other prosecutors, was intended in part to allay fears that Starr’s investigation would be a partisan affair.

Mueller also not only hired democrat Clinton donors but a lawyer who WORKED for the Clinton foundation!


Ken Starr's investigation and Robert Mueller's — compare and contrast

So leftists how can you OBJECTIVELY claim this is even a LEGIT investigation with all that known? Can ANY leftist even claim its legit from a neutral point of view or will their pure hatred of President Trump and Americans who voted for him cloud their senses? I know the answer of course its been obvious for 2 years here what the answer is.

What witch hunt?

 

[Syriusly]

Really- can't you substantiate any of your claims?
2. Comey and Mueller's VERY VERY close relationship,Mueller is one of Comey's kids godfather's,they spent more time together than they did with their wives etc.

Prove that Mueller is one of Comey's kids godfather. I can find no such record- I do see where Pence's lawyer is one of Comey's kids godfather- if you can't prove your assertion- we will assume this is another 'alternative fact'

How close were Comey and Mueller? Professionally close.

and Kelley pointed out they are not close personal friends:

Jim and Bob are friends in the sense that co-workers are friends. They don’t really have a personal relationship. Jim has never been to Bob’s house and Bob has never been to Jim’s house … They’ve had lunch together once, dinner together twice, once with their spouses and once after Jim became FBI director so Bob could give him a run-down on what to look out for. [Bob] is not a mentor. He’s friendly, as colleagues are.

So Odium- what was the source of your alternative facts- because they look a lot like out right lies.

 

[Syriusly]

3.Out of Muellers 17 angry democrats,12 donated to Clinton's campaign and 2 maxed out their donation limits AND he hired Page and Strzok who we now know are liars,unethical,immoral scum who DESPISED President Trump and therefore could not be neutral in their job on the investigation
s.

And this lie again.

What '17 angry Democrats'?

First of all- it would have been illegal and unethical for Mueller to base any of his hiring on the persons political party- but Trumpkins insist that Mueller should have considered this.
Secondly- there was no way for Mueller to know their political party- since it is not something FBI agents report.
Third- there were never 17 Democrats on the team- again this would be a lie- of the former team of 17 agents- 13 were registered as Democrats. So this is once again a Trump lie that you are parroting.
Fourth- again- the numbers you are citing are false- they are a lie
. Trump's Exaggerated 'Conflicts of Interest' Claims - FactCheck.org
Seven of them have made federal political contributions. Four gave money to Clinton’s 2016 campaign: Jeannie Rhee, James Quarles, Rush Atkinson and Elizabeth Prelogar.

Whether those donations are “substantial & many” may be a matter of opinion, but two of the four who contributed to Clinton’s campaign gave $250 or less each, according to political contribution information available through the Center for Responsive Politics’ website.

Altogether, the four team members gave $8,550 to Clinton’s 2016 campaign. More than half of that came from Rhee.

Quarles, also a former WilmerHale partner who worked as a prosecutor on the Watergate investigation, gave $2,700 to Clinton’s campaign, but also contributed $2,500 to Republican Rep. Jason Chaffetz in 2015 and $250 to Republican Sen. George Allen in 2005. Quarles has given more than $30,000 to Democrats over the years, dating back to at least 1996.

One other investigator, Andrew Weissmann, gave $2,300 to Clinton in 2007. And among the four prosecutors who are no longer working for the special counsel, one, Kyle Freeny, had given money to Clinton — a $250 donation in 2016.

So far 2 out of 2 of your items I have checked have been outright lies.

No reason to check more- because you have already demonstrated that this thread is just a forum for you to parrot Trump's lies.

 

[Syriusly]

"Former Sen. John Edwards, who sought the Democratic presidential nomination in 2008, was indicted in 2011 in connection with payments made on his behalf by a wealthy campaign donor to keep Edwards’ mistress quiet, which prosecutors argued amounted to illegal campaign contributions."

Sounds exactly the same to me. Just one of the many criminal acts thus far

Of which he was acquitted.
One big difference, Trump paid for the payments. A campaign donor paid for Edwards.

We will see- based upon what we have heard so far- it appears that Trump conspired with his lawyer and with the publisher of the National Enquirer specifically a) prevent this information from coming out before the election and b) to conceal where the money came from.

Trump could have legitimately paid with his own funds without violating any compaign laws- all he would have had to do was declare his payments- but instead Trump appears to have specifically conspired to prevent any such disclosure- and that would be a crime.

 

[Leo123]

Your implication that an investigator's political party determines what he will or will not uncover is just goofy. If that's all you got, then you should go back in the house while adults are talking.

As usual you suck the cream off the top and totally ignore the drink.

 

[BULLDOG]

Your implication that an investigator's political party determines what he will or will not uncover is just goofy. If that's all you got, then you should go back in the house while adults are talking.

As usual you suck the cream off the top and totally ignore the drink.

That is the gist of the entire OP. He tries to make the case that it would take an all republican investigative team to investigate a republican. That just isn't true.

 

[Syriusly]

Your implication that an investigator's political party determines what he will or will not uncover is just goofy. If that's all you got, then you should go back in the house while adults are talking.

As usual you suck the cream off the top and totally ignore the drink.

That is the gist of the entire OP. He tries to make the case that it would take an all republican investigative team to investigate a republican. That just isn't true.

Actually the gist of the OP is lies and misrepresentations. After I pointed out the first two big lies really was there a point in bothering to check out the rest?

 

[Syriusly]

It appears the OP has conceded his defeat in this 'clean debate' as he has left the field.

 

[Karl Rand]

Hidden under this and all similar discussions is a refusal to acknowledge Putin is an evil genius who’s managed to tear America apart so effectively a 2nd civil war is a possibility that neither side can see coming.