DOJ Appoints Robert Mueller as Special Counsel - Jerome Corsi Rejects Plea Deal

[Warcodered]

3 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

The then-No. 4 Department of Justice (DOJ) official briefed both senior FBI and DOJ officials in summer 2016 about Christopher Steele’s Russia dossier, explicitly cautioning that the British intelligence operative’s work was opposition research connected to Hillary Clinton’s campaign and might be biased.

 

Ohr’s briefings, in July and August 2016, included the deputy director of the FBI, a top lawyer for then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch and a Justice official who later would become the top deputy to special counsel Robert Mueller.

 

At the time, Ohr was the associate attorney general. Yet his warnings about political bias were pointedly omitted weeks later from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrant that the FBI obtained from a federal court, granting it permission to spy on whether the Trump campaign was colluding with Russia to hijack the 2016 presidential election.

 

Ohr’s activities, chronicled in handwritten notes and congressional testimony I gleaned from sources, provide the most damning evidence to date that FBI and DOJ officials may have misled federal judges in October 2016 in their zeal to obtain the warrant targeting Trump adviser Carter Page just weeks before Election Day.

 

They also contradict a key argument that House Democrats have made in their formal intelligence conclusions about the Russia case.

 

I really love how completely irrelevant this is. I mean who cares who hired him (Republicans in the primary and Clinton later on hiring the company that hired him) if Law enforcement agencies consider him a credible source of information and he finds some bad ***** then that is not very good.

[Deranged Rhino]

 

10 minutes ago, Warcodered said:

I really love how completely irrelevant this is. I mean who cares who hired him (Republicans in the primary and Clinton later on hiring the company that hired him) if Law enforcement agencies consider him a credible source of information and he finds some bad ***** then that is not very good.

 

It's not irrelevant when it's omitted from a FISA application. If you don't understand why that's an issue and a huge revelation, I suggest you take some time to figure out why what I'm saying is true.

[Swill Merchant]

 

[Deranged Rhino]

1 hour ago, Kemp said:

Rhino has been ducking for a while and insulting and it doesn't bother me. I think I know why.

At this point, you really think your insults will bother me? 

 

It doesn't bother you so much that you're threatening "exposing" me online. 

 

Which is hilarious on multiple levels. 

 

 

[Warcodered]

18 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

 

It's not irrelevant when it's omitted from a FISA application. If you don't understand why that's an issue and a huge revelation, I suggest you take some time to figure out why what I'm saying is true.

Right but they did include that the source was specifically looking for dirt on Trump but that they found him to be a credible source of information anyway. I mean he wasn't specifically hired by Clinton he was hired by a company that was hired by Republicans in the primary and Clinton for the Fall election and when he gathered information he turned it in to the company and the FBI. Also all this was to get that warrant to use more aggressive means of gathering information on Carter Page. It doesn't some how make information they got when they used those means is bull####.

[3rdnlng]

3 minutes ago, Warcodered said:

Right but they did include that the source was specifically looking for dirt on Trump but that they found him to be a credible source of information anyway. I mean he wasn't specifically hired by Clinton he was hired by a company that was hired by Republicans in the primary and Clinton for the Fall election and when he gathered information he turned it in to the company and the FBI. Also all this was to get that warrant to use more aggressive means of gathering information on Carter Page. It doesn't some how make information they got when they used those means is bull####.

I saw your avatar and thought you were Tiberius. I read your comments and was convinced.

[Warcodered]

2 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

I saw your avatar and thought you were Tiberius. I read your comments and was convinced.

Nope just someone else with great taste in nuclear clowns that usually posts in the football section.

[3rdnlng]

1 minute ago, Warcodered said:

Nope just someone else with great taste in nuclear clowns that usually posts in the football section.

So, a drive-by poster?

[Warcodered]

Just now, 3rdnlng said:

So, a drive-by poster?

there was a random political diversion over there that got me to look in this direction.

[Deranged Rhino]

1 minute ago, Warcodered said:

 

 

I don't say any of the following to be combative, we've never communicated down here before and I don't want it to be construed as argumentative. I'm a talker and long winded is all  So I break it up point by point just to expound on my own thinking/opinion to further the conversation... 

 

3 minutes ago, Warcodered said:

Right but they did include that the source was specifically looking for dirt on Trump but that they found him to be a credible source of information anyway. 

 

I know this thread is 400 pages but there's a lot of really good information back in the early parts of this thread which speak directly to this. Steele was never the source of the information. His credibility is irrelevant when it comes to securing a warrant. Steele collected information from sources, all of it entirely second and third hand, making it impossible to verify any of the sources of his memos or "dossier". That's a really important point that's been purposefully glazed over in the rush to sell the dossier way back in 2016/2017. 

 

6 minutes ago, Warcodered said:

I mean he wasn't specifically hired by Clinton he was hired by a company that was hired by Republicans in the primary and Clinton for the Fall election and when he gathered information he turned it in to the company and the FBI. 

 

This is also not how it went down. It's no longer controversial to state that Fusion GPS was hired by the HRC Campaign and the DNC specifically for the purposes of doing opposition research. Scott Walker, a republican, had hired Fusion GPS to do the same months prior and the contract was ended. There was no Russian dossier or research done by Walker or Fusion until they hired both Nellie Ohr and Christopher Steele directly after being hired by Hillary's campaign in April of 2016. 

 

The omission in the referenced article are paramount because included in them was that Steele was fired by the FBI, for cause, and then re-engaged for the explicit purpose of creating a circular intelligence loop in the media (through David Corn and Mother Jones) to bolster their case before the FISC. 

 

10 minutes ago, Warcodered said:

Also all this was to get that warrant to use more aggressive means of gathering information on Carter Page.

 

Have you ever asked why Page? By their own admission they were looking to get this warrant as early as June/July of 2016 but did not secure it until October 2016. By then, Page had been off the campaign for over half a year. Why, in your opinion, did the FBI desperately want a warrant on Page?

 

11 minutes ago, Warcodered said:

 It doesn't some how make information they got when they used those means is bull####.

 

The first point makes the information they got bull####. The fact the sources cannot be verified is a major problem when you're seeking a warrant at the FISC. To this day, Comey, McCabe and the upper tier of the FBI maintain the dossier remained unverified even after they took it to the court. That, in a vacuum, would be one thing. But they purposefully omitted major context about the origin of the dossier in a deliberate attempt to circumvent the law. 

 

I know that sounds ticky tack on the surface, especially if you don't like Trump (which is fine, and not what this is about). But you have to understand what the FISC is and what the powers of a FISA warrant actually are. Which is why the Carter Page question I asked above is important. 

 

 

[Azalin]

11 minutes ago, Warcodered said:

there was a random political diversion over there that got me to look in this direction.

 

That's exactly why this forum was started, so feel free to wade into the mayhem.

[Warcodered]

9 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

I don't say any of the following to be combative, we've never communicated down here before and I don't want it to be construed as argumentative. I'm a talker and long winded is all  So I break it up point by point just to expound on my own thinking/opinion to further the conversation... 

 

 

I know this thread is 400 pages but there's a lot of really good information back in the early parts of this thread which speak directly to this. Steele was never the source of the information. His credibility is irrelevant when it comes to securing a warrant. Steele collected information from sources, all of it entirely second and third hand, making it impossible to verify any of the sources of his memos or "dossier". That's a really important point that's been purposefully glazed over in the rush to sell the dossier way back in 2016/2017. 

 

 

This is also not how it went down. It's no longer controversial to state that Fusion GPS was hired by the HRC Campaign and the DNC specifically for the purposes of doing opposition research. Scott Walker, a republican, had hired Fusion GPS to do the same months prior and the contract was ended. There was no Russian dossier or research done by Walker or Fusion until they hired both Nellie Ohr and Christopher Steele directly after being hired by Hillary's campaign in April of 2016. 

 

The omission in the referenced article are paramount because included in them was that Steele was fired by the FBI, for cause, and then re-engaged for the explicit purpose of creating a circular intelligence loop in the media (through David Corn and Mother Jones) to bolster their case before the FISC. 

 

 

Have you ever asked why Page? By their own admission they were looking to get this warrant as early as June/July of 2016 but did not secure it until October 2016. By then, Page had been off the campaign for over half a year. Why, in your opinion, did the FBI desperately want a warrant on Page?

 

 

The first point makes the information they got bull####. The fact the sources cannot be verified is a major problem when you're seeking a warrant at the FISC. To this day, Comey, McCabe and the upper tier of the FBI maintain the dossier remained unverified even after they took it to the court. That, in a vacuum, would be one thing. But they purposefully omitted major context about the origin of the dossier in a deliberate attempt to circumvent the law. 

 

I know that sounds ticky tack on the surface, especially if you don't like Trump (which is fine, and not what this is about). But you have to understand what the FISC is and what the powers of a FISA warrant actually are. Which is why the Carter Page question I asked above is important. 

 

 

So to start I'm not trying to put words in your mouth I'm just mushing things together to make it easier to respond to feel free to correct what I think you're saying.

 

From this I get that you're saying that the FBI lied to get the FISA warrant. I can't really say I agree with that but beyond that I'd ask do you think the FBI doesn't/didn't see Steele as a credible source?

 

16 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

The first point makes the information they got bull####. The fact the sources cannot be verified is a major problem when you're seeking a warrant at the FISC. To this day, Comey, McCabe and the upper tier of the FBI maintain the dossier remained unverified even after they took it to the court. That, in a vacuum, would be one thing. But they purposefully omitted major context about the origin of the dossier in a deliberate attempt to circumvent the law. 

 

I know that sounds ticky tack on the surface, especially if you don't like Trump (which is fine, and not what this is about). But you have to understand what the FISC is and what the powers of a FISA warrant actually are. Which is why the Carter Page question I asked above is important. 

 

 

So on this I think you missed what I meant. What I was trying to say is that even if you throw out the warrant and say they shouldn't of been able to do what they did it doesn't make the information they got from it wrong even if it does mean you could throw it out in court.

[3rdnlng]

9 minutes ago, Azalin said:

 

That's exactly why this forum was started, so feel free to wade into the mayhem.

I'll be the one to give that permission.

[Azalin]

5 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

I'll be the one to give that permission.

 

But John Wick killed you. I saw it myself!

[Warcodered]

4 minutes ago, Azalin said:

 

But John Wick killed you. I saw it myself!

Mayhem takes many forms that was probably just a reminder to get insurance on your suits because you never know when you'll get blood on them.

[Deranged Rhino]

5 minutes ago, Warcodered said:

So to start I'm not trying to put words in your mouth I'm just mushing things together to make it easier to respond to feel free to correct what I think you're saying.

 

From this I get that you're saying that the FBI lied to get the FISA warrant. I can't really say I agree with that but beyond that I'd ask do you think the FBI doesn't/didn't see Steele as a credible source?

 

All good, it's cleaner to go thought by thought at times. Especially when it's such a nuanced (and divisive) subject.

 

As for the first part: I'm not the only one saying the FBI lied to get the FISA warrant, testimony from Bruce Ohr - then the number 4 guy at the DOJ - says the FBI lied to get the FISA warrant. And he's not the only one who has said or suggested so.

 

 As for Steele and the FBI: Steele was not a source, his credibility was not at issue because he wasn't a witness to anything he reported to the FBI. That's a big distinction to keep in mind. The FBI knew he was hired by Fusion GPS/HRC to dig into Trump, they also knew - by nature of reading the memos/dossier - that the entire thing was next to impossible to verify because it was all second and third (sometimes fourth) hand information. 

 

In other words, the people Steele wrote about in that memo are the sources, not Steele who was just the collector of the witness accounts. 

 

I'd also clarify that I'm not speaking of the entire FBI, but rather the upper echelon of their leadership who were knowingly breaking the law to set up surveillance on a presidential candidate. 

 

13 minutes ago, Warcodered said:

So on this I think you missed what I meant. What I was trying to say is that even if you throw out the warrant and say they shouldn't of been able to do what they did it doesn't make the information they got from it wrong even if it does mean you could throw it out in court.

 

The dossier remains unverified to this day because its contents cannot be proven and are likely incorrect. It's fiction intended to be used as a political weapon, which was then turned into cause to back engineer a FISA warrant on a presidential candidate. 

 

In my opinion, this was done to cover up the existence of a long term illegal surveillance operation which had been operating out of the DOJ/FBI until March of 2016. This illegal surveillance operation was used largely for political purposes, its existence becoming public was a gigantic threat to administration itself. But that's a longer story. 

[Warcodered]

21 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

All good, it's cleaner to go thought by thought at times. Especially when it's such a nuanced (and divisive) subject.

 

As for the first part: I'm not the only one saying the FBI lied to get the FISA warrant, testimony from Bruce Ohr - then the number 4 guy at the DOJ - says the FBI lied to get the FISA warrant. And he's not the only one who has said or suggested so.

 

 As for Steele and the FBI: Steele was not a source, his credibility was not at issue because he wasn't a witness to anything he reported to the FBI. That's a big distinction to keep in mind. The FBI knew he was hired by Fusion GPS/HRC to dig into Trump, they also knew - by nature of reading the memos/dossier - that the entire thing was next to impossible to verify because it was all second and third (sometimes fourth) hand information. 

 

In other words, the people Steele wrote about in that memo are the sources, not Steele who was just the collector of the witness accounts. 

 

I'd also clarify that I'm not speaking of the entire FBI, but rather the upper echelon of their leadership who were knowingly breaking the law to set up surveillance on a presidential candidate.

That's kind of the type of source Steele is isn't he? He's a source of information maybe you can't use it in court as evidence but you can use it to point you in directions to look for evidence. To find him credible is to me to think information he brings you is worth looking into.

 

So in this conspiracy against Trump does upper echelon of leadership include Comey because that makes no sense.

 

32 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

The dossier remains unverified to this day because its contents cannot be proven and are likely incorrect. It's fiction intended to be used as a political weapon, which was then turned into cause to back engineer a FISA warrant on a presidential candidate. 

 

In my opinion, this was done to cover up the existence of a long term illegal surveillance operation which had been operating out of the DOJ/FBI until March of 2016. This illegal surveillance operation was used largely for political purposes, its existence becoming public was a gigantic threat to administration itself. But that's a longer story. 

I don't know if we can really confirm that until we see what Mueller has.

[ExiledInIllinois]

The rats are jumping!

 

So there was collusion, Rudy just said so:

 

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/giuliani-claims-i-never-said-there-was-no-collusion-in-trump-campaign

 

"Trump previously denied any member of his campaign conspired with Russian officials. In May 2017, Trump flatly stated: "There is no collusion, certainly myself and my campaign."

 

Oops!

 

 

[Warcodered]

4 minutes ago, ExiledInIllinois said:

The rats are jumping!

 

So there was collusion, Rudy just said so:

 

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/giuliani-claims-i-never-said-there-was-no-collusion-in-trump-campaign

 

"Trump previously denied any member of his campaign conspired with Russian officials. In May 2017, Trump flatly stated: "There is no collusion, certainly myself and my campaign."

 

Oops!

 

 

To be fair I never know if Rudy knows what day of the week it is let alone what he's talking about. I mean how did that guy get elected mayor he seems like one of the most incompetent lawyers ever.

[boyst]

8 hours ago, Kemp said:

 

Your questions can all be answered by a red pill from galactic.

 

Another mystery cleared up by a giant intellect.

 

Galactic knows all. If you don't get it, ask Rhino. He understands.

You afford this board nothing or addition and only take away from it as an over zealous asshat that is so obtuse and beyond reason you waste other's time due to your limited ability to be honest and intellectually capable. 

 

I would literally pay you $.50 a post you don't make and those that respond to you $1/post they don't reply. Beyond blocking you it's annoying to watch the likes of GG and TrannyGreg waste time with you when you won't give them respect they deserve. 

[GG]

9 hours ago, Kemp said:

 

Once again, I never said anything even remotely like that, but you already know that.

 

Rhino has been ducking for a while and insulting and it doesn't bother me. I think I know why.

At this point, you really think your insults will bother me? 

 

All of this garbage could have been avoided with one of you being able to answer a simple and direct question. Instead, Rhino blew a gasket and his followers followed.

 

Let's start again.

 

Name some reliable sources in regards to your point of view. Blustering a non-response or a childish meme has proven to be a waste of everyone's time. If someone can just do that we can have an honest give-and-take.

 

 

You shouldn't inject your personal problems into a serious discussion.

 

Moving the goalposts yet again, I see.

 

Now the qualifier is reliable sources.  What qualifies as reliable sources?  The large media outlets that have moved from reporting to editorializing?

 

PS - the linked article is from last year, and the NYT narrative has gone through yet several more twists to arrive to where they are today, while all the small independent sites who've been tracking the story have stayed consistent - that the collusion allegations are a coverup for a major and possibly illegal setup of a Presidential candidate who then became President, and the setup grew in scope and complexity to cover their tracks.

Edited January 17, 2019 by GG

[ExiledInIllinois]

Like duh!  Of course Rudy is pre-emptive:

 

https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_5c400adbe4b041e98ffaa092/amp

 

“Quite a performance, right?” Lemon said of Giuliani’s debate with Cuomo. “But make no mistake, there is a method to this madness. The president’s attorney, as he always does, laying out the groundwork there for what is to come. So stay tuned to that.”

Just now, GG said:

 

Moving the goalposts yet again, I see.

 

Now the qualifier is reliable sources.  What qualifies as reliable sources?  The large media outlets that have moved from reporting to editorializing?

The only true reliable source to anything will be the final report.

 

Like everybody here knows more?

 

You either accept it or you don't.

[GG]

2 minutes ago, ExiledInIllinois said:

 

The only true reliable source to anything will be the final report.

 

Like everybody here knows more?

 

You either accept it or you don't.

 

That has been pointed out to Kemp several times, yet he's clamoring for his truth

[Tiberius]

No collusion! 

I had nothing to do with Russia 

It was about adoptions 

Putin said no, and I see no reason not to believe him 

Witch hunt! 

No puppet, no Puppet! 

 

[Foxx]

24 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

No collusion! 

I had nothing to do with Russia 

It was about adoptions 

Putin said no, and I see no reason not to believe him 

Witch hunt! 

No puppet, no Puppet! 

 

and there you have it folks, today's talking points from the DNC troll farm.

[Tiberius]

56 minutes ago, Foxx said:

and there you have it folks, today's talking points from the DNC troll farm.

Ha ha, quoting Donald Trump is now a talking point of the DNC 

 

?

[B-Man]

Scandal getting awfully cozy.

 

 

DOJ official Bruce Ohr shared intel from dossier author in 2016 with prosecutors now on Mueller team by Catherine Herridge, Cyd Upson

Original Article

 

 

 

LET THE DISCOVERY BEGIN: Judge won’t dismiss libel suit against Fusion GPS over dossier.

 

 

 

 

YEAH. THAT’S NOT HOW ANY OF THIS WORKS:  When Did It Become the FBI’s Job to Act as a Check and Balance to the President?

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Tiberius]

1 minute ago, B-Man said:

Scandal getting awfully cozy.

 

 

DOJ official Bruce Ohr shared intel from dossier author in 2016 with prosecutors now on Mueller team by Catherine Herridge, Cyd Upson

Original Article

 

 

 

LET THE DISCOVERY BEGIN: Judge won’t dismiss libel suit against Fusion GPS over dossier.

 

 

 

 

YEAH. THAT’S NOT HOW ANY OF THIS WORKS:  When Did It Become the FBI’s Job to Act as a Check and Balance to the President?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Trump's own pick for AG says the investigation is legit, professional and fair. So stop with the lies already 

[Deranged Rhino]

[Nanker]

[Deranged Rhino]

10 hours ago, Warcodered said:

That's kind of the type of source Steele is isn't he? He's a source of information maybe you can't use it in court as evidence but you can use it to point you in directions to look for evidence. To find him credible is to me to think information he brings you is worth looking into.

 

I'm really not trying to be pedantic but the definition of source is crucial. Let's try it another way... I assume you've seen a (bad or good) cop show over the years, a Law and Order or some other procedural. Imagine a murder investigation. You have the world's best cop leading the investigation (I'll just say it, John McClane). He shows up at the scene, after the murder took place, and the only witness is a shop owner who was across the street when the murder happened. 

 

The shop owner tells McClane what he saw... but it turns out that he didn't even see it first hand, a customer saw the murder and then told the shop owner about it who then tells McClane what he heard. 

 

McClane is not the source in this scenario. He didn't even question the primary witness. He's merely the cop investigating the crime. When he gets called to the stand to testify, many months later, McClane's still not a source and his credibility is not as important as establishing the credibility of the customer whom told the shop owner what happened in the first place. Because if the customer is a known liar who had a grudge against the victim, his statement and reputation are what matters, not McClane's. 

 

See how that works? 

 

Steele was McClane in this scenario. He's not a source. He's a collector of information from sources which he then passed on to the FBI. What matters is not Steele's reliability, but the reliability of the witnesses contained in his reporting. 

 

Calling Steele the source was done deliberately to confuse this issue because Steele's resume is impressive on the surface: he's a MI6 spy, formerly in Moscow station (before getting burned). But ultimately its irrelevant when attempting to determine the credibility of the witness statements contained in his dossier.

 

But setting that aside, the FBI - as Bruce Ohr testified as well as others - knew Steele had a bias against Trump. A "drive to destroy him" (paraphrased). That shows a possible motivation to present slanted material, especially when said material and the sources therein cannot be verified by any second or third parties. 

 

For added reference: 

 

Edited January 17, 2019 by Deranged Rhino
added a source at the end

[Deranged Rhino]

10 hours ago, Warcodered said:

So in this conspiracy against Trump does upper echelon of leadership include Comey because that makes no sense.

 

The primary conspiracy was hatched in the halls of the USIC and in the offices of Brennan, Clapper, and the Oval Office. Comey was involved, but it was Brennan's operation. 

 

10 hours ago, Warcodered said:

I don't know if we can really confirm that until we see what Mueller has.

 

There's primary source evidence of this illegal surveillance operation which was released by the FISC in April of 2017. It's found here:

https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/icotr/51117/2016_Cert_FISC_Memo_Opin_Order_Apr_2017.pdf

 

This is a very important document which, if you turn to pages 83-84 you'll discover: 

*****************************************************************

By April 18^th, 2016 that audit was complete and the NSA reported its findings to the FISC. The discovery made was startling. 85% of the 702 quarries logged in the NSD/CID between November 2015 and April 2016 were deemed illegal or improper by the FISC. These findings were compiled in the FISC opinion memo which normally remains classified but was released by DNI Coats in April of 2017, the key finding of which stated:

 

“There is no apparent reason to believe the November 2015-April 2016 period coincided with an unusually high rate.”

 

Translation: the illegal spying on American citizens inside the CID and NSD likely had been ongoing since before they were caught red handed by the NSA audit. (my own summation)

********************************************************

 

This is the origin of the Trump/Russia scandal... it doesn't involve Trump, it involves the FBI and DOJ using private contractors to illegally access 702 data for the purposes of political surveillance on not just politicians, but media members and civilians deemed a threat or a problem to the administration's agendas. 

Edited January 17, 2019 by Deranged Rhino

[Deranged Rhino]

 

 

 

 

 

Sunlight is starting to reach all corners now of the DOJ. 

 

State next. 

 

 

 

[Deranged Rhino]

 

[GG]

3 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

 

I'm guessing there will be immediate corrections and retractions in the news sources Kemp considers "reliable."

[Deranged Rhino]

9 hours ago, Warcodered said:

To be fair I never know if Rudy knows what day of the week it is let alone what he's talking about. I mean how did that guy get elected mayor he seems like one of the most incompetent lawyers ever.

 

Proving your point

 

[GG]

9 hours ago, Warcodered said:

To be fair I never know if Rudy knows what day of the week it is let alone what he's talking about. I mean how did that guy get elected mayor he seems like one of the most incompetent lawyers ever.

 

I'm guessing you didn't live in NYC before, during or after his terms?

[boyst]

25 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

 

 

 

 

Sunlight is starting to reach all corners now of the DOJ. 

 

State next. 

 

 

 

The results to Max boots twrrt are great

[Tiberius]

The Post reports:

Rudolph W. Giuliani claimed Wednesday night that he “never said there was no collusion” between President Trump’s campaign and Russia leading up to the 2016 presidential election.

In a remarkable, at times contentious, interview with CNN’s Chris Cuomo, the president’s lawyer was accused of contradicting his own past statements about collusion as well as what Trump and his supporters have repeatedly asserted. On Twitter, Trump has used the phrase “no collusion” dozens of times, and a number of those instances were direct denials that his campaign was involved with the Russian government. ...

As recently as July, Giuliani was asked by Fox News contributor Guy Benson, “Regardless of whether collusion would be a crime, is it still the position of you and your client that there was no collusion with the Russians whatsoever on behalf of the Trump campaign?”

“Correct,” Giuliani responded at the time.

 

[Deranged Rhino]