PDA

View Full Version : The Top 10 Crimes by the Corrupt and Conflicted Mueller Investigative team



jimnyc
11-27-2018, 01:25 PM
This was a setup from the days the fisa warrants were wrongly given out. Then they/Hillary and others beefed up all other kinds of things about Trump, hoping to win the election. -- And when all else failed, they are trying their best to get him tossed.

---

Here’s The List: The Top 10 Crimes Committed by the Corrupt and Conflicted Mueller Investigative and Legal Team

The Mueller Gang of corrupt and conflicted FBI and DOJ operatives has participated in numerous corrupt and criminal actions. It’s long past time to turn the page on this terrible chapter in US history and lock these scoundrels up. Here is a list of the (at least) top 10 criminal actions taken by the Mueller team.

The Mueller investigation is criminal and corrupt and above all unconstitutional. We provided a list of 10 reasons in April describing why the Mueller investigation is unconstitutional.

Here is our list of the 10 material crimes committed by the Mueller gang –

1. Rosenstein’s special counsel order identifies collusion as the crime but no such crime exists in US Law -.

Gregg Jarrett at FOX News wrote more than a year ago when Mueller initially brought charges against President Trump’s former campaign manager, Paul Manafort, that Mueller is tasked with finding a crime that does not exist in the law. It is a legal impossibility. He is being asked to do something that is manifestly unattainable because there is no such thing as the crime of collusion with foreign countries in the US statutory code.

Jarrett wrote the most succinct article about the Trump – Russia Collusion investigation to date. In his post Jarrett made many statements that were shocking, but none more than the fact that the entire investigation is lawless. Jarrett stated that no such crime as ‘collusion’ exists in American statutory law, except in anti-trust matters. It has no application to elections and political campaigns.


It is not a crime to talk to a Russian. Not that the media would ever understand that. They have never managed to point to a single statute that makes “colluding” with a foreign government in a political campaign a crime, likely because it does not exist in the criminal codes.

Because there was no crime, there was no legal reason for the Mueller investigation in the first place. Every action and deed, every criminal act since it was created (and many before it was created) are criminal due to the manner is which the investigation was set up in the first place.

2. Mueller’s investigation exceeds the scope of special counsel law which requires the scope of a special counsel to be specific. Rosenstein created the special counsel with a scope that was so broad it is not supported by this law –

Paul Manafort sued the DOJ, Mueller and Rosenstein because what they are doing is not supported by US Law as noted previously by Jarrett. Manafort’s case also argued in paragraph 33 that the special counsel put in place by crooked Rosenstein gave crooked and criminal Mueller powers that are not permitted by law –


But paragraph (b)(ii) of the Appointment Order purports to grant Mr. Mueller further authority to investigate and prosecute “any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation.” That grant of authority is not authorized by DOJ’s special counsel regulations. It is not a “specific factual statement of the matter to be investigated.” Nor is it an ancillary power to address efforts to impede or obstruct investigation under 28 C.F.R. § 600.4(a).

After Rosenstein and Mueller provided a document to the court Gregg Jarrett tweeted that it was additional support that Mueller’s investigation is unconstitutional –

Manafort’s efforts to stop the investigation were eventually overruled by an ‘Obama judge’, the corrupt Amy Berman Jackson.

3. Mueller accepted the special counsel position with known conflicts of interest –

Gregg Jarrett also called for Mueller to resign in June of 2017 stating the special counsel had an egregious conflict of interest.

In a previous Fox News column, Jarrett stated:


The Washington Post reported that that Robert Mueller is now investigating President Trump for obstruction of justice, examining not only the president’s alleged statement to James Comey in their February meeting, but also the firing of the FBI Director.

If true, this development makes the argument even more compelling that Mueller cannot serve as special counsel. He has an egregious conflict of interest.

The special counsel statute specifically prohibits Mueller from serving if he has “a personal relationship with any person substantially involved in the investigation or prosecution.” The language is mandatory. He “shall” disqualify himself. Comey is substantially involved in the case. Indeed, he is the central witness.

The two men and former colleagues have long been friends, allies and partners. Agents have quipped that they were joined at the hip while at the Department of Justice and the FBI. They have a mentor-protégé relationship. The likelihood of prejudice and favoritism is glaring and severe.

So, it is incomprehensible that the man who is a close friend of the star witness against the president… will now determine whether the president committed a prosecutable crime in his dealings with Mueller’s good friend.

4. Rosenstein and Mueller’s entire team’s known conflicts of interest.

5. The Deep State targeting of General Mike Flynn, George Papadopoulos and Paul Manafort after illegally spying on them and candidate and President Trump –

6. The Deep State raid on Paul Manafort’s house in the early hours with guns cocked and ready –

Rest - https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2018/11/heres-the-list-the-top-10-crimes-committed-by-the-corrupt-and-conflicted-mueller-investigative-and-legal-team/

pete311
11-27-2018, 01:50 PM
None of those are crimes.

Keep defending criminals. That would be your party motto.

jimnyc
11-27-2018, 01:54 PM
You lose, go away. You gave up ALL, and every last bit of credibility when it comes to crimes a LONG LONG time ago. Not wasting one minute discussing things with someone who can't write but 1-2 sentences max. Waste of time.

pete311
11-27-2018, 02:08 PM
You lose, go away. You gave up ALL, and every last bit of credibility when it comes to crimes a LONG LONG time ago. Not wasting one minute discussing things with someone who can't write but 1-2 sentences max. Waste of time.

ugh all you did was copy and paste from a link, where is your analysis? The fact is that Mueller has indicted or found guilty 32 people so far. News today is that Manafort met with Assange before the emails were released and that Trump knew. You just keep on the wrong side of history.

jimnyc
11-27-2018, 02:25 PM
ugh all you did was copy and paste from a link, where is your analysis? The fact is that Mueller has indicted or found guilty 32 people so far. News today is that Manafort met with Assange before the emails were released and that Trump knew. You just keep on the wrong side of history.

Yes, I wrote a small amount and posted an article to get the ball rolling as I do with all my threads. Then the discussions/debates should start from there. and perhaps expand.

And Assange has stated he can prove that it's an outright lie and he never met. Not surprising if it's just another way for the dems to lie, cheat or steal.

It's amusing that NOW you want to discuss legalities - when I posted endless stories about Hillary and the left and criminal allegations and such - and you ignored or laughed at it. One sided isn't my cup of tea. I have condemned some that have been outed by Mueller, and stated outright I would condemn Trump if ultimately proof was found of wrongdoing. At the very least, I discuss these things, not laugh at one side, laugh at obstruction and point fingers at only one side.

History IS on my side. I'm rocking and rolling and winning along with all of Trump's wins! And now I get to sit back and finally see someone step on the heads of the illegal cockroaches and then kick them back in the direction of where they came from.

You somehow have it in your head that if Manafort or the likes gets busted for things that have nothing to do with Russian collusion, somehow bother me.

...

OT - is funny to also see the Clinton Foundation dropping donations by like 80% or whatever I read. When she's not in office and can't help with the kickbacks, I suppose no need for donations anymore. :laugh:

jimnyc
11-27-2018, 02:35 PM
The best part is, ONCE AGAIN it's based on anonymous sources, once again both Pete and the media bite on the baseless bait.

Guardian Stealth Edits Junk Report to Save Their Ass After Assange-Manafort Fiction Crumbles

The Guardian appears to realize that they have made a massive and potentially very costly mistake in publishing their fictional story about WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange and Paul Manafort holding secret meetings.

The junk report, based on anonymous sources, was originally titled ‘Manafort Held Secret Talks With Assange in Ecuadorian Embassy.” Within 90 minutes, the Guardian changed the headline to add “sources say” and cover their asses.

https://i.imgur.com/FadLxOR.png
https://i.imgur.com/jN2aib4.png

They didn’t stop there.

The fake news peddlers (who have consistently published wildly inaccurate tales about Assange) next began editing the actual story. While it was originally presented as factual information, it was edited to deflect responsibility to their “anonymous sources.”

https://i.imgur.com/RRsYq4F.png

WikiLeaks is forcefully denying the allegations — and are willing to put their money where their mouth is.

In response to the absurd story, WikiLeaks tweeted that they are willing to bet one million dollars “and it’s editors head” that Assange never met with Manafort.

https://i.imgur.com/ybWwd7J.png
https://i.imgur.com/w91P1OQ.png

Rest - https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2018/11/guardian-stealth-edits-junk-report-to-save-their-ass-after-assange-manafort-fiction-crumbles/

Black Diamond
11-27-2018, 02:35 PM
ugh all you did was copy and paste from a link, where is your analysis? The fact is that Mueller has indicted or found guilty 32 people so far. News today is that Manafort met with Assange before the emails were released and that Trump knew. You just keep on the wrong side of history.

You were on the wrong side of history when trump put his foot up Hillary's ass and you still haven't recovered. Far as news goes, I remember you taunting us when that ABC reporter lied. How did that work out?

Black Diamond
11-27-2018, 02:40 PM
The best part is, ONCE AGAIN it's based on anonymous sources, once again both Pete and the media bite on the baseless bait.

Guardian Stealth Edits Junk Report to Save Their Ass After Assange-Manafort Fiction Crumbles

The Guardian appears to realize that they have made a massive and potentially very costly mistake in publishing their fictional story about WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange and Paul Manafort holding secret meetings.

The junk report, based on anonymous sources, was originally titled ‘Manafort Held Secret Talks With Assange in Ecuadorian Embassy.” Within 90 minutes, the Guardian changed the headline to add “sources say” and cover their asses.

https://i.imgur.com/FadLxOR.png
https://i.imgur.com/jN2aib4.png

They didn’t stop there.

The fake news peddlers (who have consistently published wildly inaccurate tales about Assange) next began editing the actual story. While it was originally presented as factual information, it was edited to deflect responsibility to their “anonymous sources.”

https://i.imgur.com/RRsYq4F.png

WikiLeaks is forcefully denying the allegations — and are willing to put their money where their mouth is.

In response to the absurd story, WikiLeaks tweeted that they are willing to bet one million dollars “and it’s editors head” that Assange never met with Manafort.

https://i.imgur.com/ybWwd7J.png
https://i.imgur.com/w91P1OQ.png

Rest - https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2018/11/guardian-stealth-edits-junk-report-to-save-their-ass-after-assange-manafort-fiction-crumbles/

Bring in ABC news to make the report "credible".

pete311
11-27-2018, 03:08 PM
lol trusting wikileaks. They also said they didn't communicate with roger stone, up until proof was shown.

jimnyc
11-27-2018, 03:11 PM
lol trusting wikileaks. They also said they didn't communicate with roger stone, up until proof was shown.

Perfect example of me wasting my time with you. It's like talking with a child. I won't place you on ignore, but I surely won't waste my time with you either.

Black Diamond
11-27-2018, 03:24 PM
lol trusting wikileaks. They also said they didn't communicate with roger stone, up until proof was shown.

Lol trusting Brian Ross.

Black Diamond
11-27-2018, 03:25 PM
Perfect example of me wasting my time with you. It's like talking with a child. I won't place you on ignore, but I surely won't waste my time with you either.

He's still throwing a tantrum like a four year old in the cereal aisle because trump hasn't been removed from office.

jimnyc
11-30-2018, 02:25 PM
lol trusting wikileaks. They also said they didn't communicate with roger stone, up until proof was shown.

And you trusted? And failed AGAIN for like the millionth time! :laugh::laugh::laugh:


IT WAS A HOAX: Guardian Report Blows Up – Manafort Passport Shows NO UK TRIPS – Never Met with Assange

On Tuesday The Guardian from the UK posted a shock report that former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort met with Julian Assange in March 2016-this was before he became Trump’s campaign chair.

The far left Guardian reported:


Donald Trump’s former campaign manager Paul Manafort held secret talks with Julian Assange inside the Ecuadorian embassy in London, and visited around the time he joined Trump’s campaign, the Guardian has been told.

Sources have said Manafort went to see Assange in 2013, 2015 and in spring 2016 – during the period when he was made a key figure in Trump’s push for the White House.

---

The Washington Times found (https://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/nov/28/feds-control-manafort-passports-would-bolster-deni/?utm_campaign=shareaholic&utm_medium=facebook&utm_source=socialnetwork) that Paul Manafort’s passport does not show any trips to London in the years he reportedly met with Julian Assange.

The Guardian report is a complete lie.

Rest - https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2018/11/it-was-a-hoax-guardian-report-blows-up-manafort-passport-shows-no-uk-trips-never-met-with-assange/

jimnyc
11-30-2018, 02:43 PM
And more: Hook - Line - Sinker for many.

Manafort/Assange Drama Proves Media Will Buy Any Russia Conspiracy Story, No Matter Its Flaws

...

The latest questionably sourced information in support of this dramatic tale that opponents of Trump cling to in order to delegitimize the results of the 2016 election is that former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort secretly met with WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange in 2013, 2015 and, ominously, in spring of 2016, just as the Trump campaign was heating up. Assange is holed up in London at the Ecuadorian embassy there and published the hacked emails from the Democratic National Committee and Clinton aide John Podesta.

Even on first read the story seemed difficult to believe. It was based on anonymous sources so non-descript that they could be any of literally millions of people. A document from Ecuador’s Senain intelligence agency allegedly claimed a “Manaford” had visited Assange along with “Russians.” The story mentioned the discredited dossier that journalists wrote about and intelligence agencies used to secure wiretaps on Trump associates despite the failure to verify its claims.

Since the visitor logs for the Ecuador embassy are public and show no mentions of Manafort, the story had to come up with a convenient excuse for why he was missing from the logs. They went with “Sources in Ecuador, however, say Manafort was not logged.” Okay, then.

I suppose it’s possible that this outlandish story has merit, that a close ally of Trump was working with WikiLeaks in an election year and it never managed to come out or get leaked, wasn’t caught on visitor logs or by any of the U.K.’s over-eager spies who were all over everyone else who knew Trump. It’s possible that Manafort missed any of the gazillion cameras trained on visitors to the Ecuadorian embassy and was able to evade any intelligence gathering about this meeting. It’s possible, but to believe it or take it seriously, you’d have to have much better sourcing, particularly since Fusion-allied groups have a reputation of planting such stories with friendly journalists.

It’s been seven and a half months, for instance, since McClatchy’s Peter Stone and Greg Gordon claimed, without evidence, that the special counsel had the goods showing that Trump attorney Michael Cohen had gone to Prague to collude with Russia in the run-up to the 2016 election. This was a key fact in the dossier and Cohen claimed it was a bald-faced lie. Even after he agreed to cooperate with the feds, he claimed it was a lie. In the seven and a half months since McClatchy ran that “bombshell” story that nearly everyone fell for, literally no one has been able to corroborate the story.

So let’s look at how people who present themselves as newsmen or thoughtful pundits handled this extremely unverified story.

Here’s Ken “FusionKen” Dilanian, NBC’s “intelligence and national security reporter.” He’s one of the journalists known for uncritically publishing Russia conspiracy theories:

https://i.imgur.com/CQQFJWy.png

Here’s another reporter, The Atlantic’s Natasha Bertrand, also known for pushing Fusion GPS theories:

https://i.imgur.com/w7TORfw.png

Perhaps worth noting that the story she mentions about texts, while billed as, you guessed it, a smoking gun of treasonous collusion, was a bit of a nothingburger, as explained here.

Weekly Standard editor at large Bill Kristol tweeted, “What campaign chair hasn’t held secret talks with Julian Assange in the Ecuadoran embassy in London?” He later deleted the tweet without explanation.

Fellow NeverTrumpist and Commentary Associate Editor and MSNBC Contributor Noah Rothman went with this take:

https://i.imgur.com/GUgY3TE.png

NeverTrump fan favorite Molly Jong-Fast has it all figured out:

https://i.imgur.com/U4wqU4R.png

Reason Magazine’s Peter Suderman said it seemed pretty collusion-y to him:

https://i.imgur.com/k7vT4qD.png

The Washington Post’s “senior political reporter” Aaron Blake was gung-ho on the story:

https://i.imgur.com/6yZb9fC.png

Rest - http://thefederalist.com/2018/11/28/manafort-assange-drama-proves-media-will-buy-any-russia-conspiracy-story-no-matter-its-flaws/

aboutime
11-30-2018, 03:17 PM
None of those are crimes.

Keep defending criminals. That would be your party motto.

Hillary, Obama, Comey, Holder, Warren, Pelosi, Waters, Schumer, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Rahm Emanuel, CNN, PMSNBC, NBC, ABC, CBS, PBS, NYT (slimes), and all of the FAKE NEWS you admire as supporters of the DNC Cesspool Drinkers Association of Swamp Dwelling Rats In DC.

Shall we now, call you Kettle???