Barr lying about Mueller
Jun 9, 2019 00:50:01 #
Radiance3 wrote:
=================
Grossly false and lied to the core. Hillary Clinton is exceptionally felonious. aided and abetted by her husband, Loretta Lynch, and Comey.
Have a oood night.
Grossly false and lied to the core. Hillary Clinton is exceptionally felonious. aided and abetted by her husband, Loretta Lynch, and Comey.
Have a oood night.
Felonious people are in jail, where Trump eventually will be.
Jun 9, 2019 01:01:47 #
everyone with even a room temperature I.Q. are realizing the truth that Hitlery and Ovomit were and are criminals to the core..... TRUMP...2020 landslide victory.... suck it up snow flakes and all you idiots still being suckered by the media......MAGA!!!!!
Jun 9, 2019 01:13:29 #
elledee wrote:
everyone with even a room temperature I.Q. are realizing the truth that Hitlery and Ovomit were and are criminals to the core..... TRUMP...2020 landslide victory.... suck it up snow flakes and all you idiots still being suckered by the media......MAGA!!!!!
Hahahahaha.... Trump probably won't even make it to 2020.
Jun 9, 2019 04:38:36 #
kemmer wrote:
He's been sued 11 times for stiffing his contractors and workers, and like his fraudulent scam Trump U., he's paid off a settlement to stay out of jail.
I said criminal charges! Not what you want it to be!!!
Jun 9, 2019 05:57:57 #
Jun 9, 2019 07:30:06 #
JIM BETHEA wrote:
FUNNY. BUT MUELLER IS THE ONE THAT'S GOING TO JAIL...
========================
I believe so.
Jun 9, 2019 07:31:05 #
kemmer wrote:
Felonious people are in jail, where Trump eventually will be.
================
All of the Deep State. Most of them have done massively.
Jun 9, 2019 09:54:00 #
Jun 9, 2019 10:13:01 #
Intel witnesses are saying the CIA Brennan was bringing Big O a personal & separate envelope with "his comments" outside of their daily intel briefing....
5 sections in the Mueller 448 pg Report are now found to have been altered of FACTS and many omissions other than these alterations...
Hillary personally paid for the 2nd Russian Dossier when the FBI / CIA decided that just having Blumenthal & Shear to represent the original Steele Dossier was not strong enough, so they added the "Golden Shower" and other fabricated lies before sending it out to McCain and the news media like Buzzfeed....
Sure Big O was neck-deep in the Coup D'Etat ~ it is very clear to any reasonable & logical thinking person that Stzrok & Lisa Page stated that they were reporting to him on any "updates" to their schemes!!
5 sections in the Mueller 448 pg Report are now found to have been altered of FACTS and many omissions other than these alterations...
Hillary personally paid for the 2nd Russian Dossier when the FBI / CIA decided that just having Blumenthal & Shear to represent the original Steele Dossier was not strong enough, so they added the "Golden Shower" and other fabricated lies before sending it out to McCain and the news media like Buzzfeed....
Sure Big O was neck-deep in the Coup D'Etat ~ it is very clear to any reasonable & logical thinking person that Stzrok & Lisa Page stated that they were reporting to him on any "updates" to their schemes!!
Jun 9, 2019 10:49:02 #
JIM BETHEA wrote:
Intel witnesses are saying the CIA Brennan was bringing Big O a personal & separate envelope with "his comments" outside of their daily intel briefing....
Names?
Quote:
5 sections in the Mueller 448 pg Report are now found to have been altered of FACTS and many omissions other than these alterations...
So now the retards are saying the Mueller report has been altered? So what does Mueller say about this?
Quote:
Hillary personally paid for the 2nd Russian Dossier when the FBI / CIA decided that just having Blumenthal & Shear to represent the original Steele Dossier was not strong enough, so they added the "Golden Shower" and other fabricated lies before sending it out to McCain and the news media like Buzzfeed....
Oh come now, you can make up a better story than that!
Jun 9, 2019 19:39:38 #
kemmer wrote:
Felonious people are in jail, where Trump eventually will be.
================
Not yet. Clinton, Obama, and the Deep State are still in the process, but soon to be.
Check out topic: Will the United States have a for sale sign
Jun 9, 2019 20:45:52 #
kemmer wrote:
Oh come now, you can make up a better story than that!
More evidence Mueller Report was a dishonest hit job omitting key facts to distort conclusions
By Thomas Lifson
No wonder Robert Mueller does not want to testify before any congressional committees. The Special Counsel Report that bears his name (that many observers theorize was actually supervised by Andrew Weissmann, who has a track record of deceptive practices causing his politically charged convictions to be overturned) has been exposed as omitting key information to create false impressions of wrongdoing among the public. It joins the Steele Dossier in ignominy as vile propaganda, and part of the greatest political scandal in American history — the concerted effort of unelected law enforcement and intelligence bureaucrats to determine the results of an election and, when frustrated in that goal, to undo it. Perhaps someday it will be known as the "Weissmann dossier" to put it in proper context.
We first found out about this betrayal of the public trust by Team Mueller at the beginning of the week because:
... the government filed "on the public docket 'the transcript of the voicemail recording' from President Trump's attorney John Dowd to Michael Flynn." That recording — in doctored form — had been part of the Mueller Report section on obstruction of justice.
The unexpected release of source material used by Team Mueller exposed the trickery. Now the Intelligence Community and FBI bureaucrats are doing their best to obstruct the release of other source documents. I suspect that many Democrats who demanded the release of Mueller's source document now regret that demand and hope we all forget about it.
Now a second egregious omission intended to mislead has been exposed by John Solomon of The Hill, who has throughout this scandal dug down and exposed the facts, even as media co-conspirators with the Intelligence Community subversives reap Pulitzers for receiving leaks of classified material. Solomon writes:
In a key finding of the Mueller report, Ukrainian businessman Konstantin Kilimnik, who worked for Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort, is tied to Russian intelligence.
But hundreds of pages of government documents — which special counsel Robert Mueller possessed since 2018 — describe Kilimnik as a "sensitive" intelligence source for the U.S. State Department who informed on Ukrainian and Russian matters.
By concealing this key fact, the Report conveyed the impression of subversive contact with a Russian agent, when in fact the purported agent was on our side, a white hat informing on the Russians.
And, as they say on the late-night TV commercials for gadgets, "But wait...there's more." A lot more, as this long and detailed analysis of five discrepancies in the report shows.
Mueller may have thought he could close the case with the press conference that allowed no questions. The House Democrats have made a huge issue of responding to their subpoenas. Their words can be used against Mueller by Senate committees — such as Lindsey Graham's Judiciary Committee — and Mueller has no executive privilege argument to make. After Mueller, get Weissmann in the hot seat, and we'll see some real fireworks.
Jun 9, 2019 20:47:38 #
JFlorio
Loc: Seminole Florida
Mueller's as deep state as it gets. He doesn’t want to be in front of a public committee hearing.
Blade_Runner wrote:
b More evidence Mueller Report was a dishonest hi... (show quote)
Jun 9, 2019 20:49:46 #
kemmer wrote:
o now the retards are saying the Mueller report has been altered? So what does Mueller say about this?
7 Glaring Omissions In The Mueller Report That Kill Its Credibility
While there is much within the Mueller report that suggests skepticism was well-founded, what is perhaps most probative is what the report omitted.
Ben Weingarten
April 23, 2019
Robert Mueller’s special counsel was presented to the American public as unimpeachable. From its beginning, a distinct minority in politics and media, including several Federalist writers, were skeptical, citing the special counsel’s past prosecutorial abuses, the past alleged misconduct of its pivotal investigators, and the team’s peculiar partisan makeup.
Once in action, its seemingly limitless powers, heavy-handed usage of such powers, and more questionable if not dubious indictments, far removed from “collusion,” seemed to confirm our worst fears. While there is much within the Mueller report that further suggests this skepticism was well-founded, what is perhaps most probative is what the report omitted.
The following are seven of the most glaring omissions from the collusion section of the redacted Mueller report—since collusion, not obstruction, was the theory from which the investigation stemmed.
1. No Attempt to Grapple with the Investigation’s Troubling Underpinnings
Russiagate in many ways appears to be the fruit of a poisonous tree of epic proportions. Allegations of a treasonous Russian conspiracy led to beyond novel legal theories, including the ludicrous invocation of the Logan Act, pervasive unmasking, spying on a presidential campaign by a political adversary based in part on a salacious and unverified dossier gleaned from sketchy Russian sources by a foreign agent and paid for by an opposition campaign, chicanerous circularity in the warrants backing the spying, the use of informants to perhaps entrap campaign members, a deluge of leaks (some of which were illegal), and much else.
We can layer on top of these malevolent acts the biases, ethical infractions, outright criminality, and clear double standards applied by law enforcement figures common to the Trump-Russia and Hillary Clinton emails investigations.
The collusion section of the Mueller special counsel report barely addresses any of the foregoing. How could such an investigation have any credibility without dealing with any, if not all of these issues?
2. No Discussion of Whether the Special Counsel’s Appointment Was Legitimate
From the special counsel’s inception, former federal prosecutor Andrew C. McCarthy and others have harped on a single fundamental question: Was the special counsel appointed in accordance with Department of Justice (DOJ) regulations?
A special counsel must be appointed based on a criminal investigation. The Mueller special counsel stemmed from a counterintelligence investigation. A special counsel’s scope must be tailored to “a specific factual statement of the matter to be investigated.” The Mueller special counsel order did not seem to adhere to this standard, and in practice, its scope was virtually unlimited.
The Mueller report does not even attempt to address this basic challenge to its legitimacy. Nor does it deal with the arguable conflicts of interest and improper actions taken by those associated with its creation, including former FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe, former FBI director James Comey, and the man overseeing the special counsel, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein—who, as Sean Davis points out, was a participant, witness, and perhaps target of the investigation himself.
3. No Discussion of Special Counsel’s Perceived Bias
The appearance of conflict based upon the composition of the special counsel team is striking. To highlight the affiliations of just a few members: Andrew Weissmann attended Hillary Clinton’s election night 2016 party and cheered on Obama DOJ holdover and former acting attorney general Sally Yates’ defying of a directive from President Trump.
Jeannie Rhee represented Hillary Clinton in a lawsuit regarding her private emails, as well as the Clinton Foundation, and previously served as a deputy assistant attorney general in the Obama administration. Aaron Zebley defended former Hillary Clinton staffer Justin Cooper, who installed her infamous private email server.
Democrats with deep ties to the administration under which the Russia investigations commenced, as well as Donald Trump’s presidential opponent, predominated in the special counsel’s office. Meanwhile, Mueller, as former FBI director, was a creature of the political establishment, and the institutions from which the investigations sprung. That his report does not grapple with any of the misconduct of the high-ranking individuals behind those investigations in and of itself raises questions.
One would think Mueller would have at least sought to create the appearance of neutrality among the investigators, especially given the anti-Trump biases exposed in the investigations preceding it. Yet Mueller did not, nor did he apparently feel it necessary to address this issue in his report. In fact, he fails even to discuss the circumstances surrounding the removal from his team of its most outspoken Trump hater known to the public, fired FBI agent Peter Strzok.
4. Skating Over the Papadopoulos Predicate for the Collusion Investigations
The Mueller report asserts that the investigation into collusion began when a foreign official (presumably unnamed former Australian Foreign Minister Alexander Downer) told the FBI that Trump campaign advisor George Papadopoulos conveyed to him that the Russians had “dirt” on Hillary Clinton that could help the Trump campaign. There is not even an attempt to grapple with the theory that Papadopoulos was set up, based on sketchy approaches from U.S. government informants and foreign counterparts who seemed to be fishing for validation from Papadopoulos that he had knowledge about this Russian “dirt.”
The focus of Papadopoulos’ contacts is Joseph Mifsud, who is described as “a London-based professor who had connections to Russia…” The Mueller report omits that Mifsud, who made the original claim to Papadopoulos about Russian dirt that Papadopoulos then regurgitated, also had extensive ties to Western intelligence agencies.
Was Mifsud planting this information on Papadopoulos? On whose behalf? Meanwhile, such contacts seem an awfully thin starting point for such a critical investigation. Yet the Mueller report fails to give a thorough explanation for why Papadopoulos’ contacts justified the start of the Trump-Russia investigation.
5. Never Mentions Steele or His Dossier in the ‘Collusion’ Section
Amazingly, in spite of the centrality of former British intelligence agent Christopher Steele’s so-called dossier to former Trump campaign advisor Carter Page’s Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrant applications, and the dossier’s dissemination across the highest levels of the intelligence community and law enforcement, neither Steele nor his dossier are mentioned once in the collusion section of the Mueller report. Steele and his “reporting” solely appear in the obstruction section of the report, largely in passing.
The paucity of attention to Steele’s work—and its origin, how and to whom it was disseminated, and what role it played in the “collusion” investigation—smacks of an attempt to downplay its significance.
6. Excluding Relevant Information About Numerous Actors
It is simply stunning the level of exculpatory evidence or at least needed context the Mueller report omits. While Steele and his dossier merit their own section, here are several other significant examples:
Steele’s benefactor and Fusion GPS colleague, its founder Glenn Simpson, are never mentioned by name.
Relatedly, critical information about Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya is missing. In relevant passages about Veselnitskaya and the infamous June 2016 Trump Tower “bombshell” turned dud meeting she led, the Mueller special counsel fails to mention that Veselnitskaya (i) worked with Fusion GPS on behalf of Russian clients, and (ii) met with Simpson the morning of the Trump Tower meeting, as well as the night before and after it. Was the Trump Tower meeting, as journalist Lee Smith has hypothesized, a setup? The Mueller report omits the critical details that would underpin such a theory. Also unclear, and undisclosed, is why the Justice Department granted Veselnitskaya special entry to the United States multiple times in 2015 and 2016.
In discussing Page’s background, the Mueller report notes his contacts with Russian agents, who supposedly tried to recruit him as an asset, beginning in 2013. The report notes that those agents were charged by U.S. authorities in 2015. What the Mueller report omits is that Page effectively served as an FBI asset in helping the bureau make the case against at least one of the agents. Further, one of the agents charged described Page in a secret recording as an “idiot.” Are not these facts relevant when Page was put under FISA surveillance and treated as a traitor?
The Mueller report describes Felix Sater as a “New York-based real estate advisor” who worked with and lobbied disgraced former Trump personal lawyer Michael Cohen extensively in an effort to execute the Trump Tower Moscow project, touting its political benefits and the ability to garner support from Russian President Vladimir Putin. Not mentioned is Sater’s colorful background: The Soviet Union-born Sater spun a stock swindling conviction into a lengthy career as a major CIA, DIA, and FBI asset, participating in numerous critical operations. Was Sater planted in the Trump organization? While he disputes it, should not the special counsel have included this full background, and sought to remove all doubt?
The Mueller report ties former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort to Russia by way of his prior work for Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska. Not mentioned: Deripaska had served as an asset to Mueller’s FBI dating back to 2009; he was sought out by senior DOJ official Bruce Ohr and FBI in 2015 to help on organized crime investigations; FBI agents reportedly floated the theory of Trump-Russia collusion to Deripaska two months before the 2016 election, which Deripaska dismissed out of hand. None of this was mentioned in the Mueller report. Why?
The Mueller report references Roger Stone and Trump campaign advisor Michael Caputo’s contacts with a Russian citizen named Henry Oknyansky. Oknyansky and an associate supposedly came to Stone by way of Caputo seeking to sell “derogatory information” on Hillary Clinton. Stone rebuffed them. Left unstated: Oknyansky, according to federal court filings and 14 visa waivers, has been an FBI informant for nearly two decades. Did he approach the Trump campaign in such a capacity?
Last but not least, intelligence informant on the Trump campaign Stefan Halper, who made contact with both Papadopoulos and Page, is never mentioned in the Mueller report.
7. Raising Potential Russia Violations about Trump Not Applied to Clinton
The Mueller report explores the novel theory that the infamous June 2016 Trump Tower meeting between senior campaign officials and Veselnitskya could have had campaign finance law implications. While it ultimately declines to assert any such violations, it notes:
[C]andidate-related opposition research given to a campaign for the purpose of influencing an election could constitute a contribution to which the foreign-source ban could apply. A campaign can be assisted not only by the provision of funds, but also by the provision of derogatory information about an opponent. Political campaigns frequently conduct and pay for opposition research. A foreign entity that engaged in such research and provided resulting information to a campaign could exert a greater effect on an election, and a greater tendency to ingratiate the donor to the candidate, than a gift of money or tangible things of value.
The above well describes the Hillary Clinton campaign and Democratic National Committee funding of the Steele dossier. On this basis, and considering Rosenstein’s desire to “ensure a full and thorough investigation of the Russian government’s efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election,” should not the special counsel’s office have investigated the Clinton campaign for campaign finance violations associated with the Steele dossier?
The special counsel appears to have purposely sought to exclude any details pointing to an attempt to frame the Trump campaign by doctoring a Trump-Russia collusion narrative and entrapping campaign members, in spite of the fact there was no collusion, and ample evidence backing such a theory.
It simply ignored the real or perceived deficiencies of the special counsel’s investigation. It also refused to call into question any of the defects associated with the investigations that preceded it.
These takeaways challenge the idea that the special counsel engaged in anything resembling an intellectually honest, objective, and good faith investigation. Rather, it would seem to indicate that wittingly or unwittingly, this was more politicized smear job and de facto coverup.
Then, although “collusion” was the starting point for the special counsel’s investigation, when the Mueller team found none it nevertheless proceeded to obstruction. But there was nothing to obstruct. The Mueller special counsel could have ended its report at Volume I because absent Volume I there could be no Volume 2.
By presenting the collusion section as it did, similarly to the obstruction section, the counsel damaged the Trump administration to the greatest extent possible without affirming its criminality. It seems that Mueller pulled a Comey.
We must have a thorough investigation of the investigators. The growing cacophony of attacks on Attorney General William Barr are a testament to it.
Jun 9, 2019 22:00:27 #
I can’t believe the lengths some people will go to, to try and disprove what is perfectly obvious to all thinking people.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Check out topic: The Biden Reelection Strategy-