MESO-Rx
Anabolic Steroids
Trump Timeline ... Trumpocalypse
- Thread starter CdnGuy
- Start date
xy5jn0
New Member
Breaking: Mueller Withheld Exculpatory Evidence from Court to Exonerate Trump - Mueller LIED to the Court!... Will He Be Sent to Jail Too?
LIED to the court!
Contrary to media speculation that Robert Mueller is closing in on President Trump, the special prosecutor’s plea deal with Trump’s personal lawyer Michael Cohen offers further evidence that the Trump campaign did not collude with Russians during the 2016 election, according to congressional investigators and former prosecutors.
Cohen pleaded guilty last week to making false statements in 2017 to the Senate intelligence committee about the Trump Organization’s failed efforts to build a Trump Tower in Moscow. Discussions about the so-called Moscow Project continued five months longer in 2016 than Cohen had initially stated under oath.
The nine-page charging document filed with the plea deal suggests that the special counsel is using the Moscow tower talks to connect Trump to Russia. But congressional investigators with House and Senate committees leading inquiries on the Russia question told RealClearInvestigations that it looks like Mueller withheld from the court details that would exonerate the president.They made this assessment in light of the charging document, known as a statement of “criminal information” (filed in lieu of an indictment when a defendant agrees to plead guilty); a fuller accounting of Cohen’s emails and text messages that Capitol Hill sources have seen; and the still-secret transcripts of closed-door testimony provided by a business associate of Cohen.
On page 7 of the statement of criminal information filed against Cohen, which is separate from but related to the plea agreement, Mueller mentions that Cohen tried to email Russian President Vladimir Putin’s office on Jan. 14, 2016, and again on Jan. 16, 2016. But Mueller, who personally signed the document, omitted the fact that Cohen did not have any direct points of contact at the Kremlin, and had resorted to sending the emails to a general press mailbox.Sources who have seen these additional emails point out that this omitted information undercuts the idea of a “back channel” and thus the special counsel’s collusion case.
LIED to the court!
Contrary to media speculation that Robert Mueller is closing in on President Trump, the special prosecutor’s plea deal with Trump’s personal lawyer Michael Cohen offers further evidence that the Trump campaign did not collude with Russians during the 2016 election, according to congressional investigators and former prosecutors.
Cohen pleaded guilty last week to making false statements in 2017 to the Senate intelligence committee about the Trump Organization’s failed efforts to build a Trump Tower in Moscow. Discussions about the so-called Moscow Project continued five months longer in 2016 than Cohen had initially stated under oath.
The nine-page charging document filed with the plea deal suggests that the special counsel is using the Moscow tower talks to connect Trump to Russia. But congressional investigators with House and Senate committees leading inquiries on the Russia question told RealClearInvestigations that it looks like Mueller withheld from the court details that would exonerate the president.They made this assessment in light of the charging document, known as a statement of “criminal information” (filed in lieu of an indictment when a defendant agrees to plead guilty); a fuller accounting of Cohen’s emails and text messages that Capitol Hill sources have seen; and the still-secret transcripts of closed-door testimony provided by a business associate of Cohen.
On page 7 of the statement of criminal information filed against Cohen, which is separate from but related to the plea agreement, Mueller mentions that Cohen tried to email Russian President Vladimir Putin’s office on Jan. 14, 2016, and again on Jan. 16, 2016. But Mueller, who personally signed the document, omitted the fact that Cohen did not have any direct points of contact at the Kremlin, and had resorted to sending the emails to a general press mailbox.Sources who have seen these additional emails point out that this omitted information undercuts the idea of a “back channel” and thus the special counsel’s collusion case.
xy5jn0
New Member
https://www.infowars.com/the-latest-russia-collusion-bombshells-are-big-fat-duds/
A recent blitz of “bombshell” headlines initially appear to show there might actually have been some collusion between the 2016 Trump presidential campaign and Russia.
First, there was The Guardian claiming that Paul “Manaford” (oops, the source meant Manafort) met with Julian Assange of WikiLeaks in spring 2016, with the obvious implication that it was done to plan or coordinate WikiLeak’s Hillary Clinton email dump.
Mollie Hemingway ably pointed out holes in the story by mentioning, among other issues, that Manafort would have entered the Ecuadorian embassy to meet Assange in the heart of London, which is blanketed by the most robust network of video cameras in the world. There would be video and it would have leaked. It hasn’t.
Margot Cleveland followed up with a nice article showing that The Guardian’s anonymous sourcing doesn’t pass muster against on-the-record denials from both Assange and Manafort, especially in light of the pattern of the media’s several false starts with other competing collusion theories.
A recent blitz of “bombshell” headlines initially appear to show there might actually have been some collusion between the 2016 Trump presidential campaign and Russia.
First, there was The Guardian claiming that Paul “Manaford” (oops, the source meant Manafort) met with Julian Assange of WikiLeaks in spring 2016, with the obvious implication that it was done to plan or coordinate WikiLeak’s Hillary Clinton email dump.
Mollie Hemingway ably pointed out holes in the story by mentioning, among other issues, that Manafort would have entered the Ecuadorian embassy to meet Assange in the heart of London, which is blanketed by the most robust network of video cameras in the world. There would be video and it would have leaked. It hasn’t.
Margot Cleveland followed up with a nice article showing that The Guardian’s anonymous sourcing doesn’t pass muster against on-the-record denials from both Assange and Manafort, especially in light of the pattern of the media’s several false starts with other competing collusion theories.
xy5jn0
New Member
https://www.infowars.com/the-latest-russia-collusion-bombshells-are-big-fat-duds/
We can now add NBC News, which just published a very misleading piece that incorrectly appears to be another “smoking gun” gotcha of Russia collusion. The first sentence reads, “Two months before WikiLeaks released emails stolen from the Clinton campaign, right-wing conspiracy theorist Jerome Corsi sent an email to former Trump campaign advisor Roger Stone anticipating the document dump.”
Left-wing conspiracy theorist Anna Schecter quoted one email from Corsi as saying, “Word is friend in embassy plans 2 more dumps…One shortly after I’m back. 2nd in Oct. Impact planned to be very damaging.”
The Public Already Knew Assange Planned More Dumps
The article completely overlooks whether the “word” Corsi was referring to could have been information that was already available in the public domain. Corsi allegedly wrote this email on August 2, 2016. In March 2016, WikiLeaks launched a database of 30,000 emails and email attachments sent to and from Hillary Clinton’s private email server while she was secretary of state. These documents were legally obtained by a Freedom of Information Act request, not hacking.
We can now add NBC News, which just published a very misleading piece that incorrectly appears to be another “smoking gun” gotcha of Russia collusion. The first sentence reads, “Two months before WikiLeaks released emails stolen from the Clinton campaign, right-wing conspiracy theorist Jerome Corsi sent an email to former Trump campaign advisor Roger Stone anticipating the document dump.”
Left-wing conspiracy theorist Anna Schecter quoted one email from Corsi as saying, “Word is friend in embassy plans 2 more dumps…One shortly after I’m back. 2nd in Oct. Impact planned to be very damaging.”
The Public Already Knew Assange Planned More Dumps
The article completely overlooks whether the “word” Corsi was referring to could have been information that was already available in the public domain. Corsi allegedly wrote this email on August 2, 2016. In March 2016, WikiLeaks launched a database of 30,000 emails and email attachments sent to and from Hillary Clinton’s private email server while she was secretary of state. These documents were legally obtained by a Freedom of Information Act request, not hacking.
xy5jn0
New Member
https://www.infowars.com/the-latest-russia-collusion-bombshells-are-big-fat-duds/
Subsequent to the March 2016 release but before the Stone email “predicting” more, Assange released additional emails that appear to have been obtained extra-legally. As reported in the June 12, 2016 issue of The Guardian, Assange announced on television that WikiLeaks had obtained and was preparing to release “more emails sent and received while [Clinton was the] US secretary of state.”
On July 21, 2016, Heavy reported that Assange would release the new emails as part of “a series,” which strongly suggests Assange planned to time the releases for maximum effect in the presidential election. On July 27, 2016, The New York Times noted that Assange was timing his email releases for maximum political damage, releasing one batch for the Democratic National Convention. Following the July, 2016 release of documents, Assange publicly announced that his website might have “a lot more material” relevant to the U.S. electoral campaign.
Assange made no secret of his disdain for Clinton, whom he deemed a war-monger. A politically astute observer could have assumed that Assange would save a release for October. To put it another way, Corsi sent Stone an email with predictions that could have easily been deducted by reading the widely available news reports and listening to Assange’s public statements.
Subsequent to the March 2016 release but before the Stone email “predicting” more, Assange released additional emails that appear to have been obtained extra-legally. As reported in the June 12, 2016 issue of The Guardian, Assange announced on television that WikiLeaks had obtained and was preparing to release “more emails sent and received while [Clinton was the] US secretary of state.”
On July 21, 2016, Heavy reported that Assange would release the new emails as part of “a series,” which strongly suggests Assange planned to time the releases for maximum effect in the presidential election. On July 27, 2016, The New York Times noted that Assange was timing his email releases for maximum political damage, releasing one batch for the Democratic National Convention. Following the July, 2016 release of documents, Assange publicly announced that his website might have “a lot more material” relevant to the U.S. electoral campaign.
Assange made no secret of his disdain for Clinton, whom he deemed a war-monger. A politically astute observer could have assumed that Assange would save a release for October. To put it another way, Corsi sent Stone an email with predictions that could have easily been deducted by reading the widely available news reports and listening to Assange’s public statements.
xy5jn0
New Member
https://www.infowars.com/learn-why-mueller-is-raiding-more-trump-lawyers/
xy5jn0
New Member
https://www.infowars.com/trump-asks-can-americans-handle-what-im-about-to-release
Many observers seem baffled by Republican fealty to Donald Trump — the party’s willingness to back him on all fronts, even after severe defeats in the midterm elections. What kind of party would show such support for a leader who is not only evidently corrupt and seemingly in the pocket of foreign dictators, but also routinely denies facts and tries to criminalize anyone who points them out?
The answer is, the kind of the party that, long before Trump came on the scene, committed itself to denying the facts on climate change and criminalizing the scientists reporting those facts.
Trump fits right in with this mind-set. In fact, when you review the history of Republican climate denial, it looks a lot like Trumpism. Climate denial, you might say, was the crucible in which the essential elements of Trumpism were formed.
There are three important morals to this story.
First, if we fail to meet the challenge of climate change, with catastrophic results — which seems all too likely — it won’t be the result of an innocent failure to understand what was at stake. It will, instead, be a disaster brought on by corruption, willful ignorance, conspiracy theorizing and intimidation.
Second, that corruption isn’t a problem of “politicians” or the “political system.” It’s specifically a problem of the Republican Party, which has burrowed ever deeper into climate denial even as the damage from a warming planet becomes more and more obvious.
Third, we can now see climate denial as part of a broader moral rot. Donald Trump isn’t an aberration, he’s the culmination of where his party has been going for years. You could say that Trumpism is just the application of the depravity of climate denial to every aspect of politics. And there’s no end to the depravity in sight.
xy5jn0
New Member
https://www.infowars.com/federal-reserve-moves-to-kill-u-s-recovery-to-stop-trump/
