What did Robert Mueller know about Peter Strzok’s political bias, when did he know it, and on whose recommendation did Mueller hire Strzok to “investigate” the allegation that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia to steal the 2016 election? Did Mueller know of Strzok’s political bias and his role in the Clinton email scandal investigation before hiring Strzok? Did Mueller simply get caught stacking his investigators with anti-Trump personnel when the Justice Department’s inspector general exposed Strzok’s bias? Americans demand answers to these and other questions relating to the costly Mueller investigation that is going nowhere.
What did Robert Mueller know about Peter Strzok’s political bias, when did he know it, and on whose recommendation did Mueller hire Strzok to “investigate” the allegation that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia to steal the 2016 election?
Did Mueller know of Strzok’s political bias and his role in the Clinton email scandal investigation before hiring Strzok? Did Mueller simply get caught stacking his investigators with anti-Trump personnel when the Justice Department’s inspector general exposed Strzok’s bias?
Was Mueller aware of the sweetheart deals Strzok participated in that granted blanket immunity, destroyed critical evidence, and failed to pursue significant charges against Clinton aides relating to the FBI investigation of Hillary Clinton’s four years of continuous national security violations using private nonsecure email devices for government business, including the illegal sending and receiving of the highest level of national security information?
Did Mueller appreciate that the FBI, under former Director Comey and with the assistance of Strzok, obstructed justice on a massive scale by destroying key evidence (the electronic devices confiscated from Clinton’s aides) which bore directly on the evidence of guilt of Clinton and her aides during Clinton’s four years as Secretary of State?
Was Mueller aware of the likelihood that Strzok was responsible for leaking key information to the press regarding the investigation of alleged collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia?
Did former FBI Directory James Comey influence Mueller’s use of Strzok?
Given the primary mission of Mueller’s investigation is to search for any evidence that Russia influenced the 2016 presidential election, why hasn’t Mueller pursued the mountain of plain evidence that, in return for substantial funds from Russia laundered to and through the Clinton Foundation that were used to fund Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign, Russia obtained 20% of US uranium reserves some of whose product was subsequently illegally exported from the US?
Given the evidence of “collusion” between the Clintons and Russia to provide funds for Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign is vastly greater than the partisan claims of Trump campaign collusion with Russia to influence the 2016 election, why hasn’t Mueller pursued the strong evidence of Clinton-Russia collusion?
Mr. Mueller’s “investigation”, tainted by his use of politically-biased “investigators” and his refusal to explore clear evidence the Clinton’s colluded with Russia to fund Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign, should be directed by the Department of Justice and/or Congress to wrap up their pursuit of claims of Trump campaign collusion with Russia, claims that do not even rise to the level of specious, and issue a final report by the end of this year.
Simultaneously, a new Special Counsel should be tasked to pursue (1) the evidence of Russian collusion with the Clintons, (2) while Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State, the Clintons’ sale of favors to foreign entities in exchange for massive donations to the Clinton Foundation/Clinton Global Initiative, and (3) the clear, deliberate, reckless, and egregious violations of national security by Hillary Clinton and her aides during the four years Clinton was Secretary of State and used private, nonsecure email devices for both official and private business, in clear violation of federal law, including national security law.
Finally, a temporary task force of independent investigators should be formed for the purpose of finding, exposing, and removing all high level officials/employees within all branches of government who are pursuing an independent political agenda contrary to the will of the American people as expressed by federal election results. Special emphasis should be put on rooting out and prosecuting those who have leaked information in clear violation of federal law.
The American people are entitled to a functioning federal government free of political bias and corrupt officials who serve the interests of a political party rather than our nation.
Bob Webster, a 12th-generation descendent of both the Darte family (Connecticut, 1630s) and the Webster family (Massachusetts, 1630s) is a descendant of Daniel Webster's father, Revolutionary War patriot Ebenezer Webster, who served with General Washington. Bob has always had a strong interest in early American history, our Constitution, U.S. politics, and law. Politically he is a constitutional republican with objectivist and libertarian roots. He has faith in the ultimate triumph of truth and reason over deception and emotion. He is a strong believer in our Constitution as written and views the abandonment of constitutional restraint by the regressive Progressive movement as a great danger to our Republic. His favorite novel is Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand and believes it should be required reading for all high school students so they can appreciate the cost of tolerating the growth of unconstitutional crushingly powerful central government. He strongly believes, as our Constitution enshrines, that the interests of the individual should be held superior to the interests of the state.
A lifelong interest in meteorology and climatology spurred his strong interest in science. Bob earned his degree in Mathematics at Virginia Tech, graduating in 1964.