And that as Martha says, is a good thing.

“Mark talks with George Papadopoulos, the first Trump campaign member to plead “guilty” in the Mueller investigation. Mr Papadopoulos has set down his account of what happened these last four years of his life in a new book called Deep State Target – about how a Beltway think-tank wonk was set up as the “mark” of multiple high-level well-connected figures from America, Britain, Italy, Australia and elsewhere.”

John Ratcliffe to be the head of ODNI (Office of the Director of National Intelligence).

https://youtu.be/DfJO0ppMxQI

I just found this out, its on page two of his book. George Papadopolous while in Europe was given $10K in an envelope by someone who apparently had intent to do business with him. He had a feeling about this and left the envelope in Europe with his lawyer. When he arrived in the U.S. as he deplaned he was taken by the FBI into a room and was searched thoroughly, and he had no idea why.

Why would they do such a thing? The only thing he could think of was that they were looking for that $10K, a sum that would be illegal to transport in cash between country’s. A set up. A set up by Special Investigator Mueller employee Weinstein or someone in the FBI attempting to set off the “Russia Collusion” story? The FBI knew what they were looking for, they did not just pick Papadopolous out by random.

So, who needs to be even more “Concerned” then they are at the moment if Mr. Ratcliffe is made DNI? St. James Comey the pious, Mr. Clapper and of course, CIA shifty eyed and mad as hell that Trump won, John Brennann.

Lots of concern to go around and it will grow even more so.

Have a nice day sir.

Q: 1. Is Robert Muellers investigation politically based and biased against Trump?

Q: 2. Is Robert Mueller a disinterested and objective party related to what he is investigating I.E. the Russians and corruption related to the 2016 presidential election which involved Hillary Clinton who has by evidence received up to $145 million in “donations” to her personal foundation in an on going schedule of “donations” to her foundation for what clearly appears to be the facilitation of the Russians receiving control of Uranium One and a chunk of Americas natural resources by the “Next president of the United States? What a sentence!

I suspect that the answers to these two questions will roll out in about September or October of 2018, just before the November mid term elections? That is unless Jeff Sessions after the releases of the I.G. Horowtiz report arrests most involved players and indicts them all.

Could happen, I can have fantasy’s.

David: I will be glad to answer your questions, but you apparently haven’t desired to do much work in asking them. For example, I actually provide links in my very essay above, documenting these points.

1. You doubt Mueller’s investigation is partisan? I addressed this point, with many links to other articles, in this post: A weaponized and partisan Justice Department and FBI

Your job, should you decided to take it, is to read this material with an open mind, and not immediately focus on the handful of weak spots that you and I both know are there. The sum is what is important, and that sum is that Mueller, along with the upper management at both the DOJ and FBI, has become partisan Democrat, and is acting improperly.

2. The first link above covers some of your question here, but so does this post: Background of Mueller’s lead investigator confirms it is a witch hunt With this post I link and comment on a detailed description of the illegal behavior of Mueller’s lead investigator, Andrew Weissman, who has been found numerous times to have abused his power as a prosecutor. (As an aside, I embed at this link Mueller’s congressional testimony concerning his fake IRS investigation. You should watch it. It illustrates how corrupt and partisan Mueller is.)

Once again, you need to read the long article I link to on Weissman. The string of abusive cases he prosecuted, almost all of which eventually got thrown out because of his misbehavior, is chilling. Why he still works as an attorney appalls me.

I should add that this issue has nothing to do with Donald Trump. I know you despise him, and think he is a disaster. In many ways, I agree, though I also find much of what he has done (not said) to have been very worthwhile.

The point here is that there has been an on-going partisan effort in the Justice Department and the FBI, beginning before the election and continuing thereafter, to weaponize those agencies as tools of the Democratic Party in order to invalidate the legal election of an American president.

3. I do not think a person’s political leanings should be considered for Justice Department hirings. However, the Clinton administration made such a position moot. Until Clinton, presidents respected the objectivity of who was working there when they came in office, and left them alone. Bill Clinton however fired everyone immediately so he could install his own partisan lawyers. Worse, George Bush did little to correct that partisan action when he was president, which meant that he had a hostile Justice Department to deal with. Obama continued Clinton’s approach, in that he made the political leaning of any appointee crucial, removing Bush-era appointees when he could.

In order to restore balance here we have to once again allow both sides the right to fire everyone in Justice, when a new party takes office. After the agency gets cleaned out enough times we shall once again be ready to hire objective attorneys, and leave them alone.

1. You say that his entire team is comprised of democrats. Would you provide a link(s) to illustrate that is a fact? I can’t even find the names of all his investigators. I know Mueller is a republican, but couldn’t find anything that provides the political affiliations of all the other lawyers on this investigation.

2. Seems to me if memory serves me that he currently has 16 or 17 investigators working for him. And that is not counting the two folks he dismissed last fall. Do you have access to anything that shows anything negative in how these investigators have conducted themselves during the now or prior to this investigation (besides the two already dismissed for their improper conduct)?

3. I read that the DOJ had to review and approve each of these lawyers. Do you think that in the future, an individual’s political leanings should be used during the DOJ approval process on whether they are qualified to join an investigative team?

Thank you as always for this site and in this case, adding the link to your previous essay from last June. It was interesting to review comments made at that time in light of what has come to pass in the subsequent 8+ months.

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-03-02/contradictions-seth-rich-murder-continue-challenge-hacking-narrative

Mueller is loath to investigate anything that rips open the communal criminality of the Democrat / Hillary Clinton crime syndicate. WHO MURDERED SETH RICH AND WHY MR. MUELLER? One hell of a good question.

Russia took it a step further and helped organize events in meatspace and this is a problem. It is also very common as our friends to the left are often part of international movements. Is the DOJ going to start arresting transnational activists?

It discusses a Dutch intelligence agency’s penetration of a Russian Foreign Intelligence Service hacking unit in which, in addition to having access to the Russian computers so that they were able to monitor attack efforts real-time, they were even able to gain access to a hallway security camera and identify the Russian staff as it came and went. Interesting, real-life, Spy vs. Spy stuff.

The story is about a month old, and I must have missed related coverage when it first came out.

http://iaccouncil.org/politics/mccain-associate-takes-fifth-on-trump-dossier-questions/

In about one month or so Inspector General Horowitz will release his report, which the Democrats initiated because of Comeys actions towards the Hillary operation, and things should take a very different direction and interpretation.