[johnforbes]

Every staffer he hired was anti-Trump. 9 of the 17 lawyers hired had actually donated recently to Obama or Hillary, proving their partisan feelings.

The most anti-Trump AG in America, Schneiderman, has been working with Mueller to find some dirt on Trump or his people.

This is the precise opposite, the antipodal opposite, of a neutral investigation.

[Clownkicker]

johnny's insightful post explains why Trump supporters are wasting their time thinking Hillary will be prosecuted for anything.

Not one of the Hillary supporters in the Justice Department will indict her, and johnforbes would be outraged and offended if a single anti-Hillary person was allowed to work on an impartial investigation.

So that about does in everyone, doesn't it, johnny? She's got nothing to worry about. :lol:

[RealJustme]

Not one of the Hillary supporters in the Justice Department will indict her, and johnforbes would be outraged and offended if a single anti-Hillary person was allowed to work on an impartial investigation.

So that about does in everyone, doesn't it, johnny? She's got nothing to worry about.

Clown you missed the fact that those Hillary supporters in the in the Justice Department and FBI have been exposed and are running like cock roaches as the light is shined on them. They should have Hillary on suicide watch. She doesn't like pink pants suits.

[Clownkicker]

So RealTool agrees with johnforbes, that no one in the Justice Department should be allowed to indict Hillary because all that are left are the anti-Hillary people, and that would make a neutral investigation impossible, as johnforbes tells us.
Nobody wants an investigation that isn't neutral.

So Hillary is in the clear, if johnforbes and RealTool are to be taken seriously. :lol:

[johnforbes]

Clown, be serious.

There are thousands of career people there, and surely plenty of them have opinions, but they don't send ten thousand text messages indicating their bias.

Would I favor a neutral investigation of Hillary?

Yes, of course.

Unfortunately, she did indeed transfer classified info to a non-secure private server in violation of the law.

There's really no debate about that.

[Clownkicker]

johnforbes, be serious.

Strzok never sent 10,000 emails biased against Trump. Don't be so gullible.
You've been swilling the garbage slopped in your trough by your handlers again.

There were possibly 400 emails exchanged involving Trump, but there were hundreds of others just as negative about Hillary, Sanders, Pence, Cruz, and practically everyone else. In one email Strzok even said he was going to vote for a Republican for President, so your idiotic claim that he was supporting Hillary is just stupid. He had no particular attachment to her or the Democrats.

But you don't care about any of those other emails, do you? All you can see is your partisan tunnel vision.

You don't even care that Strzok was only on the investigation for about a month before he was transferred out, exactly as a fair investigator like Mueller should do once he discovered any 'appearance of bias', so Strzok had little effect on the case. All the real stuff came out after he was already gone, and that was about Manafort, Flynn, Gates, and Popadopoulos, not Trump.

[johnforbes]

Get serious.

Not email. Strzok (married) send 10,000 text messages to his lover (also married), who was also wasting taxpayer money at the agency texting her paramour rather than working.

What I want is what we all want -- a neutral, fair, non-partisan law enforcement agency.

What we know is that Hillary paid for the dossier, which was gathered from Russian sources by a Brit spy chosen because he was the former Russia desk chief. So it was Hillary working with Russia on that, and on Uranium One where she reaped 147 million.

They either helped pay for the fake dossier, or offered to pay Steele 50k more for further fake stuff, and that the fake dossier was almost surely used as the pretext to get two FISA warrants signed almost surely by Lynch, and these were used to wiretap Trump and his associates to undermine a properly elected president.

So that is NOT a neutral law enforcement agency nor a neutral "justice" agency, and that has to concern any good American citizen who wants to believe in fair law enforcement (not special rules for Hillary and her ilk).

[Clownkicker]

Sorry johnny. Go ahead and replace "email" with "texts" in my previous post.

Other than that, it stands as is. Strzok did not make 10,000 texts related to Trump.
It's probably less than 400, half of which he didn't send but received. So more like 200 texts over many months.
But he still said he was probably going to vote Republican.

Meanwhile, not a single thing in the 'dossier' has yet been shown to be "fake" as you're pretending, and much of it has been shown to be true.
Can you really expect more than that if you're going to buy Republican PAC-funded research?

[johnforbes]

But what point are you making?

One really nasty anti-Trump text would suffice to make the point that Strzok was hopelessly prejudiced while in a position of delicacy which required fairness and discretion.

Neither of which he had.

As to 10,000 texts, it underscored that neither Strzok nor Page (both married to other people) were living up to the creed of Fidelity (nope), Bravery (they tried to hide the texts), and Integrity (not hardly).

Nor were they even working for their pay because they were spending their days texting each other.

[sillydaddy]

Like all things fake that someone tries to pass off as authentic..
some part has to be real to make the con work....Spies throughout history have used this tactic...
Clown loves to parade around with the dossier under his arm..and it makes for a conversation starter ..but
even a pre-law student knows it would be useless in a courtroom.. :o :lol: :lol:

[Clownkicker]

johnny, Strzok made 'really nasty' posts about virtually everyone running. Even Hillary.

But he was fired after a month, as soon as his attitude became known, so what difference does it make to the investigation? None whatsoever.

But I hope you are now suitably embarrassed by this thread, johnny. Trump himself just came out and said you're wrong about a biased investigation. He says Mueller will be fair. So if Trump doesn't care about it, why should you?

And sillydummy, why are you pretending there is anyone on the planet that thinks the 'dossier' is a legal document?
That sounds like just another conservatard made-up-stupid-shit talking point. :o :lol: :lol:

[johnforbes]

True, but Strzok was not pursuing Hillary. He was trying to pin something on Trump while protecting Hillary.

Besides, to be fair, what good remarks could anybody make about Hillary?

Strzok's firing was kept SECRET for six months.

As to Trump saying Mueller could be fair, you've got to wake up and smell the coffee.

He knows very well Mueller has been tremendously unfair, and that Mueller is now under pressure to pretend to have a modicum of fairness in an attempt to rescue his own declining reputation.

There is a lesson here. If you have had a decade of relative success in D.C., and you are investigating a president, YOU MUST HIRE PEOPLE WHO ARE POLITICALLY NEUTRAL AS OPPOSED TO HIRING AN ALL-PARTISAN STAFF AND NINE OF SEVENTEEN LAWYERS WHO DONATED TO THE OPPONENT OF THE PERSON BEING INVESTIGATED.