Why not read the history rather than trust a single twat from an anonymous
poster. It's not as simple as that.
#butnothingishappening
The Internet?
Of course Weldon doesn't think so, he's hardly unbiased. McCabe thinks his
shit doesn't stink, either.
All the affiants, not all the signers. There's a difference. You don't need to be
a lawfag to understand what the difference is.
It is, but it also points out what I stated here ==>>5237533
The answers make it clear they went with the "conclusions presented."
The "conclusions presented" are on the affiants, and the facts that were
never taken into consideration were left off by those same affiants. He just
threw the agents that originated the application under the bus.
Who? Strzok at least, I'm guessing, maybe McCabe, too? I don't recall
the others.
>~"We weren't mandated to look for the truth"
That's not what those statements are implying (nor is it an actual convo).
The affiants were required to do so, but lied. In this line of questioning,
hypothetical (or otherwise) Mueller is saying that's what they did.
It may be implying the Woods procedures are insufficient, or just that
they weren't properly followed. I don't know for sure.
If the fraud was ON the court, I can't see how he'd be responsible.
The definition of fraud would be that he (or his court) was lied to.