Anonymous ID: 72b43e Jan. 30, 2019, 1:03 p.m. No.4967481   🗄️.is 🔗kun

>>4967283

NOTABLE.

Excellent analysis anon.

I've been looking at this as well.

One of the things to note (and I don't have the sauce at my finger tips) is that Bill Clinton was involved with the Huawei-Australia deal. With Whitaker's Huawei indictments, this may provide a new investigative angle to analyze CF and HRC emails, thus making it difficult for the MSM to ridicule it as old news.

Anonymous ID: 72b43e Jan. 30, 2019, 1:27 p.m. No.4967753   🗄️.is 🔗kun

>>4967550 >>4967292

>Whose evidence? Mueller's? From his office?

>

>He probably altered it himself.

The entire article is odd.

>The firm's lawyers have made several attempts to appeal the charges,

There is no appeal process for a criminal charge, as there is nothing for an appelate judge to review.

 

My best guess is that Concord is appealing a judges decision that disallowed them to communicate discovery to their client due to MUH national security.

Herr Mueller also claims that Concord's attournies are untrustworthy dissemblers, by claiming they modified then leaked discovery they obtained from Herr Mueller. Of course Herr Mueller can't say what was leaked nor how it was changed cuz MUH national security. He also said Concord's attournies did this to discredit the case.

Except that that makes no sense from Concord's counsel. Their primary purpose for leaking would be to inform their client, so that the client could provide material to defend itself.

These machinations by Herr Mueller suggest strongly that his case is feeble as fuck.