Guest views are now limited to 12 pages. If you get an "Error" message, just sign in! If you need to create an account, click here.

Jump to content
  • CRYPTO REWARDS!

    Full endorsement on this opportunity - but it's limited, so get in while you can!

Obama-Gate Spying, Mueller Probe & Impeachment Sham, Political COUP


Recommended Posts

This thread is being created for a recap of ALL the Democrat Party Shams, and new discoveries of ways that they tried to bring down the POTUS:

 

1) Stormy-Gate

2) Mueller Probe - FAKE NEWS Trump-Russia Collusion

3) Impeachment Sham - FAKE NEWS Quid-pro-quo

4) Obama-Gate Spying - This is where the REAL story is as this is the greatest political crime in American history

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 3
  • Confused 1
  • Upvote 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/trump-attorney-accuses-mueller-lie-defraud-gregg-jarrett

 

John Dowd, one of the lead lawyers who represented President Trump during Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russian collusion, said Tuesday that the special counsel engineered a perjury trap for Trump in the exact same way that James Comey’s FBI invented a trap for former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn.

 

“Mueller’s scheme was the same one captured in the (newly released) FBI set-up notes pertaining to Flynn. They knew they had nothing, but using their official power they created and perpetuated the facade of an investigation,” said Dowd.

 

In an extensive interview on Tuesday, Dowd explained to me how his commitment of cooperation and transparency in dealing with Mueller was eventually turned against the president, as the special counsel “misled” Trump’s legal team in order to manufacture a crime where none existed.

 

According to Dowd, Mueller learned early in his investigation that there was no evidence of Trump-Russia collusion to influence the 2016 presidential election. He admitted it during a meeting with the president’s lawyers on March 5, 2018. So, Mueller shifted to a legally contorted interpretation of obstruction of justice in order to keep his investigation afloat.

 

On Tuesday, Dowd elaborated on how the special counsel deceived the Trump team:

 

“As I look back, we had the most perfect trusting relationship with Mueller based on his word and handshake, which held throughout. No paper. Word was solid. They received everything they asked for without a hitch or page missing, including the most intimate notes of conversations with and by POTUS (President of the United States). Every witness they requested testified truthfully. No lying. No grand jury testimony. Mueller affirmed all of this in our March 5 (2018) meeting. How could there be a whisper of obstruction under these circumstances?” 

 

Despite no evidence of an underlying crime, Mueller insisted that the president be interviewed by the special counsel. Dowd knew it was a trap. Mueller had done it to Flynn and others. He was clearly angling for obstruction of justice and hoping to ensnare the president in the equivalent of a perjury trap if he consented to be interviewed.

 

But obstructing what? Mueller readily acknowledged that there was no underlying crime. Moreover, Trump had encouraged every witness connected to his campaign and the White House to testify. He voluntarily produced more than a million pages of documents. The special counsel’s investigation had proceeded unimpeded. 

 

As Mueller persisted, Trump’s lawyer realized that he had been conned all along. On Tuesday, Dowd was unsparing in his scorn for Mueller and his unscrupulous tactics:  

 

“That is when I knew he had lied to me in our original meeting (June 16, 2017) and every meeting thereafter. Robert Mueller —‘D.C.’s great man’ — completely and deliberately misled us in order to set up a perjury/false statement trap for POTUS. It was a monstrous lie and scheme to defraud.”

 

Dowd shared with me numerous documents and letters supporting his accusations against Mueller. They paint a vivid picture of a special counsel determined to damage the president with an investigation bereft of any credible evidence.

 

In the March 5, 2018, meeting, the special counsel suggested that maybe Trump’s firing of Comey (Mueller’s longtime friend, partner and ally) might constitute obstruction of justice. This was especially ludicrous since both Comey and deputy FBI director Andrew McCabe had testified that no one had obstructed the bureau’s investigation and that the probe had continued uninterrupted after Comey’s departure.  

 

Dowd patiently explained to Mueller that the firing had been an exercise of presidential authority under the Constitution and could not, by definition, establish obstruction. Even Comey had confirmed this. Trump had sacked the director for repeated violations of FBI regulations in his mishandling the Hillarious Clinton email scandal and on the recommendation of the deputy attorney general, as well as several former attorneys general and deputy attorneys general from different eras and both political parties.

 

Yet, Mueller would not relent. This led to an angry confrontation between the special counsel and Dowd that is recounted in my book, "Witch Hunt: The Story Of The Greatest Mass Delusion In American Political History" (page 222, Chapter 5): 

 

Mueller: I have to look at obstruction.

 

Dowd: You want to look at obstruction in the firing of Comey? I’ll tell you who our first witnesses will be: the attorney general, the deputy attorney general and the White House counsel. They all urged the president to fire Comey. He was off the rails in his handling of the Clinton email case.

 

Mueller: We may pursue a grand jury subpoena to compel the president to testify.

 

Dowd (pounds his fist on the table): You’ve got nothing! Go ahead! I can’t wait for you to try. You’ve got no leg to stand on.

 

Jay Sekulow, another of President Trump’s lawyers, attended that meeting and confirmed to me this account of the heated exchange, which was also reflected in his handwritten notes.

 

At the same meeting, Mueller became so desperate that he broached the absurd idea of how Trump’s public criticism of the special counsel might be construed somehow as an obstructive act. Dowd felt that Mueller and his subordinates were now living in an alternative universe where their version of the law bore no resemblance to statutes, Supreme Court decisions and accepted constitutional law.

 

“They acted like crybabies who were offended that someone dared to criticize them, so they instinctively labeled it obstruction,” Dowd told me last year. He added, “It was insane.”

 

One of the most insightful documents Dowd shared with me recently was a letter to Mueller dated Feb. 16, 2018, in which Trump’s legal team argued persuasively how the FBI’s counterintelligence investigation was predicated on Russian disinformation secretly fed to ex-British spy Christopher Steele, who composed a phony anti-Trump “dossier” that was paid for by the Hillarious Clinton campaign and Democrats.

 

Just last month, more than two years after Dowd’s letter, declassified documents were released proving that Kremlin-sponsored disinformation drove the collusion case. Comey and his confederates deliberately exploited what they knew to be untrue and discredited information.  They used it as a pretext to spy on the Trump campaign and investigate the president. This led to the illegitimate appointment of the special counsel, Bob Mueller, who launched an investigation in search of a crime that never occurred. As Dowd correctly stated in his letter, the special counsel appointment was “void” because it was the product of corruption.

 

On Tuesday, Dowd called Mueller’s investigation and report a sham. “They knew there was nothing there.” Dowd said that Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein also knew it and is “just as guilty.”

 

Dowd said he hopes that U.S. Attorney John Durham, who is currently investigating the Russia hoax, would hold all of them to account for their rampant corruption and dishonesty. “Their three-year investigation was all phony,” he observed.

 

Trump’s attorney concluded our conversation with these words:

 

“They knew there was nothing to investigate. People subverted the system of justice. One corrupt act after another. It’s staggering. The lies were monstrous. It was all pretense and fraud. Mueller should not walk. Rod Rosenstein should not walk.”

 

And neither should James Comey, Andrew McCabe and disgraced ex-FBI agent Peter Strzok.

 

Gregg Jarrett is a Fox News legal analyst and commentator, and formerly worked as a defense attorney and adjunct law professor. He is the author of the No. 1 New York Times best-selling book “The Russia Hoax: The Illicit Scheme to Clear Hillarious Clinton and Frame Donald Trump.” His latest book is the New York Times bestseller "Witch Hunt: The Story of the Greatest Mass Delusion in American Political History"

 

*****/END OF THE ARTICLE\*****

 

Indy

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 2
  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

***///

Now if only we could help some of the left's enslaved/co-opted/hijacked brains by

getting them to read & understand these truths, they might really get "woke"...! :eek:

 

But, alas.... apparently with those lazy nanny-state-lovers' ==> ignorance is bliss... sigh....:facepalm3:

Thank you, INDRAMAN.:tiphat:

 

.

Edited by SgtFuryUSCZ
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
  • Confused 1
  • Upvote 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...

Reading the news, I was in AK when the plane crash occurred and the people there mourned like the president was assassinated but I did not until now as I'm reading about the crash, that Mueller was involved in the probe along with the FBI. Nor that Schumer was so heavily involved. A leopard doesn't change its spots.

 

https://mustreadalaska.com/mueller-and-the-political-assassination-of-ted-stevens/

 

Mueller and the political assassination of Ted Stevens

  • Screen-Shot-2018-08-28-at-9.02.35-AM.png

By FRANK MCQUEARY SENIOR CONTRIBUTOR

It is the 10th anniversary of the political assassination of the late Sen. Ted Stevens, which occurred two years before his untimely death in a plane crash on Aug. 9, 2010.

I have been watching the coverage of the “Russian collusion investigation” and the trial of Paul Manafort.

A picture is starting to take shape:

If you were in Alaska in 2007 and 2008 you had a ringside seat to see the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Department of Justice fabricate a criminal case against US Senator Ted Stevens.

The head of the FBI at the time was Robert Mueller.

While ultimately cleared of all charges, the case against him cost Stevens his seat in the US Senate in 2008.

The heart of the DOJ/FBI prosecution was the allegation that Stevens had failed to disclose over $250,000 worth of work on his Girdwood “chalet”.  It was $250,000 of work ostensibly done by his friend Bill Allen’s company, VECO, in addition to the $180,000 which Stevens had paid for the so-called improvements.

Events would eventually make it obvious that Stevens overpaid by $80,000 or more and should have been suing to get some of his money back.

But the FBI/DOJ team had a different narrative they were selling.

On July 30, 2007 they hired a locksmith and invited news and TV crews to observe their “raid” on Sen. Stevens home.

The Anchorage Daily News, in the person of Rich Mauer, as well as reporters from Anchorage TV station Channel 2 and commentator-for-hire Shannon (Shannyn) Moore were there by invitation.

What this intrepid band of reporters failed somehow to notice was that there was no way that $180,000 much less the alleged additional $250,000 from VECO, had been spent on upgrading Ted’s rather modest chalet.

Nor did they see any incongruity in the FBI, normally religiously silent about ongoing investigations, inviting them to what became a show and tell.

Nor, it is worth noting, have any of these intrepid souls had the moral courage to set the record straight by admitting that they were duped by the investigators.

But why would Sen. Stevens’ friend Bill Allen testify to something which was patently untrue?

Undisclosed by the FBI/DOJ team were several salient facts:

Bill Allen was in the process of selling his company, VECO, to CH2MHill for net cash proceeds somewhere in the neighborhood of $432,000,000.

The majority of those proceeds were allowed to flow through to Allen family members and trusts as well as several minority owners. Only the $70,000,000, which was to go directly to Bill Allen, was impounded by the DOJ pending his cooperation in the prosecution of Sen. Stevens.

Also undisclosed was the fact that Allen, once named Alaskan of the Year, now drunken and brain-damaged from a motorcycle accident, was himself under investigation by the Anchorage Police Department for illicit sexual relations with a minor, and that the investigation was being quashed by the FBI/DOJ.

The carrot for Allen’s cooperation was the release of his $70,000,000; the stick was the frozen investigation of Allen’s own corrupt criminal acts.

Ultimately the illegal prosecution of Sen. Stevens was thrown out, first by Judge Emmett Sullivan, and then by Eric Holder.

But it cost Stevens his seat in the US Senate.

In July of 2008, just months before the elections, a DC jury convicted Stevens. Using the suborned false testimony of Bill Allen, hiding evidence of Stevens’ innocence, the FBI and DOJ had piled on charges and leaked so much false and damaging evidence to the “press” that the Washington DC jury returned a conviction.

But all this was only part of the story. In Florida, a minor league Democrat named Vic Vickers, packed up his household goods and headed to Alaska. He changed his registration to Republican, filed to run for US Senate and proceeded to spend a million dollars on “campaign” ads that said little, other than “Stevens is a crook.”

And, in Washington DC, the Democratic National Committee, then under Chuck Schumer’s leadership, was grooming Mark Begich to replace Stevens. In Alaska Begich was cautious in his criticism of Stevens because of Stevens’ popularity. In DC where his financial and political support was based he was vicious in attacking Ted.

Apologists in the years since Stevens’ conviction was overturned have tried to paint the indictment as the work of the Bush Administration and the exoneration as the work of the Obama administration.

The reality is that it was an entrenched bureaucracy which was putting its thumb on the scales of justice.

When whistleblower Special Agent Chad Joy revealed just some of the improprieties and illegal activities on the part of the FBI/DOJ, you would have expected that heads would have rolled. But the only one in the FBI to suffer much more than a slap on the wrist was Chad Joy, the whistleblower who went public and revealed the ethical lapses on the part of both the FBI investigation and the DOJ prosecution.

Needless to say his career in a bureaucracy run by Robert Mueller did not thrive. One year later he was no longer with the FBI His partner, Mary Beth Kepner, who was found guilty of a myriad of ethical and legal lapses, was still with the FBI years later.

Similarly in the DOJ not much happened to the malfeasants. Only Nicholas Marsh suffered a self-imposed penalty when he committed suicide.

It was during this period of time under Mueller’s leadership at the FBI that Mueller first partnered with DOJ’s Andrew Weissman. Weissman had promulgated the practice of intimidating witnesses and soliciting false testimony, hiding evidence and procuring high-profile convictions, which were later overturned on appeal, but not before lives were ruined and in some cases lost. When his brutal and dishonest practices had been focused on racketeers and crime lords, no one seemed to care about his tactics.

In the summer of 2008 when I and others had encouraged Stevens to mount a vigorous campaign and proclaim his innocence loudly and broadly, the former federal prosecutor explained that he had to walk a very narrow path because under the RICO statutes that were being used, any public comments he made concerning the investigation could be interpreted by the DOJ/FBI investigators as “obstruction” and could lead to new charges.

Ultimately Stevens did hire a campaign manager in August of 2008. It was too little, too late. Many former supporters were either intimidated by the aggressive manipulation of facts by the FBI or convinced of Stevens’ guilt by the staged display and leaking of information about the investigation to sympathetic media.

Stevens ultimately lost the election by a mere 3,000 votes in spite of the false “conviction” and the overwhelmingly negative coverage in the Anchorage Daily News by the rabidly anti-Stevens reporter Rich Mauer.

Mark Begich, with the help of Chuck Schumer and the DNC went on to become Alaska’s Junior Senator, just in time to provide the 60th vote for Obamacare and vote in lockstep with Obama’s redistribution agenda.

In April of 2009 Judge Emmet G. Sullivan dismissed the ethics conviction of Ted Stevens. In a 14 minute diatribe he said that he had never seen “mishandling and misconduct like I have seen” in the Stevens trial. He then appointed a special counsel to determine if the prosecutors themselves should face criminal charges themselves.

A powerful US Sen. Stevens was the bureaucratic cabal’s first major political victim. But now it is after a bigger fish, the president of the United States.

Frank McQueary is a life-long Alaskan and political activist and student of Alaska history.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Before the Election 

Obama Laughs Off Trump's Claim of 'Rigged' Election

 

 

Obama to Trump: Stop whining

 

after the election which they wasn't suppose to Lose...

 

Obama vows to retaliate for U.S. election interference

 

Obama tells the World "Election Interference will Report back to me"

 

Obama orders intelligence report on 2016 election hacking

  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Published June 18, 2020
Last Update 2 days ago

Mueller, DOJ sued by businessman for $100M claiming 'false' Russia report statements

image.jpg

Giorgi Rtskhiladze, an American citizen originally from the former-Soviet nation of Georgia, is suing Robert Mueller and the Department of Justice, claiming that a footnote in Mueller's Russia report falsely characterized him and linked him to an unverified, scandalous allegation involving President Trump contained in Christopher Steele's infamous dossier.

 

Rtskhiladze claims in the complaint, filed Wednesday in D.C. federal court and first reported by Law & Crime, that Mueller falsely described him as a "Russian businessman," and improperly implied that he had detailed knowledge of purported recordings of Trump in a Moscow hotel in 2013.

 

FORMER US ATTORNEY GUY LEWIS PREDICTS 'PEOPLE ARE GOING TO GET PROSECUTED' OVER RUSSIA PROBE

 

"Footnote 112 of Volume II of the Mueller Report weaponized the unverified and debunked Steele Dossier when it falsely but sensationally introduced plaintiff to the world as a nefarious 'Russian businessman,' involved in surreptitious actions with a Russian oligarch to assure that purportedly salacious tapes of Mr. Donald J.Trump did not become public and hinder Russia’s efforts to influence the 2016 presidential election," the complaint says.

 

The footnote, located on page 27 of Part II of the report, states, “On October 30, 2016, Michael Cohen received a text from Russian businessman Giorgi Rtskhiladze that said, ‘Stopped flow of tapes from Russia but not sure if there’s anything else. Just so you know . . . .” The footnote later says that Rtskhiladze said the recordings were “compromising tapes of Trump,” and that “Rtskhiladze said he was told the tapes were fake, but he did not communicate that to Cohen.”

“These statements were false, reckless, and misleading,” the lawsuit says. “Special Counsel Mueller and his team knew that there was no connection between plaintiff and the Steele Dossier, that plaintiff had no contact with anyone associated with the Crocus Group about the purported tapes, and that plaintiff had no knowledge about the whereabouts, existence, or authenticity of such tapes.”

 

Rtskhiladze says the reason why he contacted Cohen about the tapes was because a friend had called him saying he overheard someone in Moscow talking about tapes of Trump. Rtskhiladze insists it was impossible for him to know what the tapes referred to, since he had no connection to the Steele dossier, and the dossier itself had not been made public yet. He noted that at the time he texted Cohen, it was soon after an Access Hollywood tape had surfaced showing Trump making controversial remarks about women, and there was concern that more tapes could be out there.

 

SEN. RON JOHNSON ON RUSSIA PROBE'S BIGGEST QUESTIONS: 'WHO KNEW WHAT AND WHEN?'

 

The footnote also misquoted Rtskhiladze's text to Cohen, he claims. The complaint says that in reality, Rtskhiladze said, “Stopped flow of some tapes from Russia but not sure if there is anything else.” He later claims he told Cohen, “Not sure of the content," but Mueller left this part out.

 

"The omission of 'some' in the quoted text is significant," the lawsuit claims. “'Stopped the flow of tapes' suggests familiarity with their content while 'stopped flow of some tapes' indicates a lack of familiarity with their content."

 

Rtskhiladze says that after the Mueller report came out, he sent a letter to Attorney General Bill Barr demanding a retraction of the statements, but he did not receive a reply.

Fox News reached out to the Department of Justice for comment, but they did not immediately respond.

 

Rtskhiladze claims that the statements in the footnote have prevented him from acting as a Georgian emissary to the U.S., as he had been in the process of being named “Honorary consul” for U.S.-Georgia relations.

 

“The great irony is that plaintiff has spent his adult life fostering a relationship that the Putin regime tirelessly seeks to subvert,” the complaint states.

 

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

 

The lawsuit also alleges that the statements in the footnote have damaged Rtskhiladze's ability to conduct international business and philanthropy and that by making the statements in the report without giving him an opportunity to respond, Mueller violated his Fifth Amendment procedural due process rights.

 

Rtskhiladze is seeking $100 million in damages plus attorneys' fees, as well as a declaration from the court that the statements are defamatory, and an injunction ordering the Justice Department to delete the footnote's references to him.

 

++++++

 
 
 
Edited by coorslite21
  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/27/2020 at 9:32 AM, Indraman said:

This thread is being created for a recap of ALL the Democrat Party Shams

Hope you don't mind my post, I was just setting the timeline and how all this went down, with what your referring to with your thread. It's clearly obvious with facts to back it up, those that continue to deny are just full of Hate. The Never Trumpers (The Hate Everything America Party) want to continue the havoc from the past administration that promoted and raise the divide, we all are witnessing.  

 

Lets not forget the Insurance Policy

  

 

 

 

  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



  • Testing the Rocker Badge!

  • Live Exchange Rate

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.