So how come when I limit the timeframe of my google search and try to find info about Mueller's involvement with ending the Grand Jury for Marc Rich (2005), all I see are these articles from Feb 1, 2001 talking about the Trump Campaign? When you click on them, it leads you either nowhere or to an unrelated article.
Google covering up for child pedo enabler Robert Mueller, too? There's also virtually nothing detailing his direct involvement with David Asimov, whom he delivered a plea bargain for as a US Attorney, knocking off two of his child pornography charges on the basis of 'psychiatric evidence', dismissing the potential for child porn distribution because Asimov was 'too introverted' to distribute (according to Asimov's lawyer)
????
Asimov's lawyer, Chris Andrian (defender of many child molesters in Northern California) hired psychiatrists to evaluate Asimov, as did Judge Maxine Chesney. His four counts (reduced by two thanks to Mueller) were further reduced by Judge Chesney. The court documents are sealed, so we may never know the basis for Chesney reducing the sentence as such. None of the children in the thousands of images/videos were given justice, no parents came forward, and he got off with 6 months of in-home arrest with an ankle bracelet without posting any bail or property forfeiture. Thanks Mueller!
And google wants you to only know Mueller as the man who is 'taking down the Trump Crime Syndicate'.
Here's some names from the case, try to cross reference these individuals, and those close to them, with as many high profile individuals as you can find.
Michael Mullins, Chris Adrian (lawyer), Judge Maxine Chesney, Sal Rosano
If anybody finds anything else, perhaps more recent, that would be greatly appreciated.
anybody interested in digging with me? This will be my first and only bump, if nobody ends up joining I'll post whatever else I find later in a separate thread.
>>136293859
this is /pol/, newfriend. you can't bump your own threads.
these attempted-character-assassination threads are entertaining, though.
>>136294496
I don't live by artificial rules, sorry shill. But thanks for the free bump!
>>136292091
Weird...
>>136295212
what was the relevance of this?
>>136295412
"you can't bump your own threads"
Whats the relevance of that statement?
>>136296030
Obviously I'm not forbidden from bumping my thread, so go take your fantasy rules away from here. If you're not here to contribute, take your nonsense elsewhere.
>>136296306
obviously not anymore.
but you can't bump your own thread if no one else has posted in it, like in >>136293859, since ~2014 ish
>>136296559
Can you please specify 'cant'? Am I forbidden by an invisible rule? Or will the board just not bump if I'm the only comment? Either way, you seem to have found it well enough.
>>136296823
well, you're obviously free to post as much as you'd like in the thread. but the thread will not be bumped to the first page if you're the only poster. it's like you're auto-saging against your will.
>>136296956
Okay thanks for clearing up the ambiguity in your statements.
>>136297177
cheers