All you're doing is spreading disinformation while denying the mountain of evidence against the real criminals.
Not one single word you write can be believed.
And from Mr. Mueller point of view as well. He is the one who said that he couldn't establish coordination.
YOu people just cannot get right (i.e., refuse to get it right). Mueller's report said it couldn't establish enough evidence for a CONSPIRACY but found dozens of examples of coordination and cooperation as you've been shown time and time again. Why don't you just admit that you people are fine with Dirtbag's fondness for trying to use foreign help for his domestic political gain. He did it again with Ukraine and he'll do it yet again before this year's campaign is over.
Clappper-- page 87 and 88
Lynch - page 64 and 65
McCabe- 208-210
Rice- page 72
Yates- page 24-26
Q: Did you ever receive any specific information as Attorney General to show that there was a demonstrable level of collusion between the Russian Government and its affiliates and Trump and Trump candidacy for President?
LYNCH: You know, I think that - again, I was not asked to draw that conclusion, and so I would not have done that level of analysis. [-- REDACTED --] But at that time, you know, you would not have been looking to draw a legal conclusion at that point in time because you were still seeing things happen. So I don't think that you would be able to say - you certainly should not say: My legal conclusion in the middle of this is X. You certainly may have a view or a concern, but I would not have drawn that legal conclusion because things were still occurring.
Q: And did you ever draw a legal conclusion, taking you up to January 19, 2017, on the matter?
Lynch: Well, certainly I agreed with the lntelligence Community assessment. Based on everything that had been presented to me, I agreed with the assessment that came out in October, I agreed with the assessment that was released in I think early January. I agreed with those conclusions, and they were - they were based on things that had been presented to me in the PCs, and I thought that they were wellfounded conclusions and concerns.
MR. GOWDY: The hacking of the server, the accessing of Podesta's email. Do you have any evidence regardless of whether or not you believe it and regardless of whether or not it comes from a source that would be admissible in any court, so l'm giving you free rein to use hearsay, and even if you say I heard it like with the stuff with DOJ, and Debbie Wasserman Schultz, heard it, read it, maybe didn't believe it, Donald Trump colluded, conspired, confederated with anyone to hack the DNC server.
MR. MCCABE: Do I personally have -
MR. GOWDY: Or have you seen evidence?
MR. MCCABE: Right, have I personally seen evidence or information that shows Donald Trump's involvement in the DNC hack?
MR. GOWDY: Yes.
MR. MCCABE: No, sir
--
MR. GOWDY: All right. Well, let me ask it differently. ls there any evidence, do you have any evidence that Donald Trump himself participated in the decision to disseminate or the timing of the dissemination of the information gleaned during either of those two criminal acts, the hacking of the server and the hacking of Podesta's email?
MR. MCCABE: I personally haven't seen information that would indicate that, that would indicate Donald Trump's personal involvement in those criminal actions
Lot of couldas, wouldas and wantas with Mr. Mueller.
But nothing of substance-- which isn't surprising. He simply confirms what the aforementioned Obama guys have said.
Meanwhile, it continues to be true that the only campaign that actually received information from Russia was the Clinton campaign.
It's actually quite amazing that you people can pretend admitted criminals who actually plead guilty are really innocent. And the **** you invent to do that is hilarious to behold.
Thank you for taking the time to do this. I know it's work.
Now we can analyze what you referenced. This is where the rubber meets the road
Unraveling the Criminal Web at Comey's FBI and Beyond
.By Charles Lipson
The way to unravel a criminal conspiracy is to begin with the weakest links, the ones already doomed by convincing evidence. Knowing they face serious jail time, these “weak links” have powerful reasons to cooperate with law enforcement. Flipping on their fellow conspirators is the best way, perhaps the only way, to lessen their own sentences....
Horowitz presents evidence that Clinesmith not only altered official documents, he completely changed their meaning. The altered documents painted Carter Page as a foreign spy; the originals said there was no evidence for that. The exculpatory evidence was hidden from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Courts. The lies helped gain a secret warrant to spy on Page....
The FISA court was told Carter Page was a foreign agent when the FBI, DoJ, and CIA knew he was not. The court was told Russians had offered Page billions of dollars in an oil-and-gas deal to pay for his help. The FBI, DoJ, and CIA knew there was no such offer.
How important was the Steele dossier to gaining the warrant? The FBI’s own legal counsel said, in internal documents, “this is essentially a single source FISA” (p. 132). That source was the Steele dossier. (Remember when Comey and all the Democrats denied that? There was lots more evidence in the applications, they said. There wasn’t.)...
Clinesmith, for one, has compelling incentives to say who knew what and when. He was apparently caught red-handed changing official documents. His lawyer ought to be seeking ways to lessen the criminal consequences. The only way to do that is to come clean.
Anybody who worked with Clinesmith should be thinking the same thing. It would be good for them and it would be good for the country.
Unraveling the Criminal Web at Comey's FBI and Beyond | RealClearPolitics
Rice- page 72
MR. ROONEY: But I don't know who to believe in the news anymore. So my question to you is, like, in your official capacity, with regard to what you had been briefed by actually the lntelligence Community, was there anything that came across your desk that was official documentation which showed coordination - you referred, I think, to - I forget the guy's name -- But was there anything official that you saw in your capacity in the prior administration that showed actual coordination between the campaign? Not what we've been seeing in the news, not what we've heard about at cocktail parties, but in your official capacity.
MS. RICE: To the best of my recollection, there wasn't anything smoking, but there were some things that gave me pause
Yates- page 24-26
MR. GOWDY: Who aren't earning their paychecks. Wilh respect to that pivot point, did you, while you were at Justice, have any evidence, collusion, conspiracy, coordination, coincidence, contact, any of them, that the candidate himself had any involvement in the intrusion into the DNC server and/or the Podesta email?
MS. YATES: lf you're asking me, did I reach the conclusion that he - he had had that, the answer to that would be no. lf your question is, were there facts that would be relevant to whether he had had some involvement in that, that's going to kind of depend on how you define the relevancy there, in terms of were there facts that there were individuals who were -- how would I describe this - well, let me back up. Certainly, there was a conclusion on the part of the lntel Community that the Russian Government at the highest levels - in fact Putin had directed that those intrusions occur. And so then there were facts that were beginning to develop about whether or not there were individuals associated with the campaign that were having communications about the dissemination of that information. That's where I remember the fact pattern being at that point.
It would seem that actually receiving information from Russia about a political opponent would be the greater evil than wanting to receive information from Russia.
If the outrage is genuine, that is.
The kind of **** that's in the DoJ filing to the Writ of Mandamus backing up everything I have been posting, yep, hilarious.
Day 2 of all the Democrats on this post playing Srg Schultz because they have all day to post but no way to read 30 pages of PDF.
Well, that's a new line of BS for us.
You are now 0 for 4.
You are now 0 for 5.
IG report shows Russia hoax a coup attempt
By Miranda DevineDecember 11, 2019 | 10:34pm
Inspector General Michael Horowitz finally damned the FBI during his testimony Wednesday when he said he would be “skeptical” that there was anything accidental in the egregious catalog of errors the FBI committed in its spying operation on Donald Trump’s presidential campaign.
It took five hours of questioning about the FBI’s motivations but Horowitz, prudent and impartial as he is, finally delivered the money shot.
Asked by Republican Sen. Mike Crapo if the 17 “significant errors or omissions” he found in the FBI’s surveillance operation could possibly be “accidental,” Horowitz said: “I would be skeptical.”
He went on to explain “the answers we got were not satisfactory [so] we’re left trying to understand how could all these errors have occurred over a nine-month period on three teams hand-picked, on . . . the highest-profile case of the FBI, going to the very top of the organization, involving a presidential campaign.”
Horowitz described the conduct of the FBI as “inexplicable” when its operatives bent the rules to try to prove Trump’s campaign was colluding with Russia.
But sadly the FBI’s conduct is all too explicable. It can be explained by the proven anti-Trump bias of its personnel, hand-picked to run Crossfire Hurricane, the FBI operation to spy on the Trump campaign using salacious opposition research paid for by Hillary Clinton’s campaign.
Horowitz’s testimony confirms suspicions that the Russia-collusion hoax amounted to an attempted coup against Trump and laid the groundwork for impeachment.
IG report shows Russia hoax a coup attempt: Devine
Blah, blah, blah, blah.
From Mueller Report: The Trump campaign coordinated and cooperated with various Russian elements to get dirt on Clinton:
Guide to the Mueller Report’s Findings on “Collusion” - Just Security
The fact that all of that "coordination and cooperation" fell just short of a conspiracy is hardly a thing to brag about. It's that "just the tip" excuse which makes up so much of the corruption of Donnie Dirtbag.
the DOJ keeps showing more and more information to be faulty and improper.
LOL not enough evidence means not guilty
Reality only seems to be BS from within your delusions.
So you can't actually bring yourself to read the transcript, eh? So your excuse for technically not lying would be ignorance, then?
I accept your surrender--as that comment clearly indicates you've abandoned your quest to keep posting lies.
Yet the DOJ keeps undermining that with actual document releases and court filings that show Mueller couldn't find what he was looking for and refused to back down.
This is not true. The DOJ keeps revealing that the investigation as a whole was done largely correctly despite a few mistakes. The Horowitz report is a good example of this as it largely demolished the ridiculous claims of pro-Trump conspiracy theorists. I recall everyone kept saying ooooh just wait for the Horowitz report. ooooh he's gonna blow the lid off the Deep State. What a huge let down that was for them, wasn't it? They felt so stupid the Horowitz report did not reveal some idiotic Deep State conspiracy.
Barr disagrees, guess who gets to decide?
Muellar didn't find any evidence of coordination or cooperation with Russia to effect the election. That's why the house quickly switched to Ukraine.
I am shocked that you would display an authoritarian sort of attitude with this comment Totally not like a Trump supporter!
When you say "activity they were trying to hide", the implication is that something nefarious or improper was discussed between Flynn and the ambassador,
when you know for a fact there was nothing that was even the least bit suspicious about their discussion.
Again, here you are trying to defend the FBI's conduct by concocting theories about their motive for interviewing Flynn
when their motive for that interview has already been established through an FBI document written by Bill Priestap... a document that you like to ignore because it doesn't jibe with what your saying.
I am quite aware of that, but there's some things about that interview you don't seem to take into account... Some of which don't require any research or reading, just an average amount of common sense and an ability to apply reasoning.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?