Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

Rohrabacher responds...

https://www.rohrabacher.com/news

 

Quote

There is a lot of misinformation floating out there regarding my meeting with Julian Assange so let me provide some clarity on the matter: 

At no time did I talk to President Trump about Julian Assange.  Likewise, I was not directed by Trump or anyone else connected with him to meet with Julian Assange. I was on my own fact finding mission at personal expense to find out information I thought was important to our country.  I was shocked to find out that no other member of Congress had taken the time in their official or unofficial capacity to interview Julian Assange.  At no time did I offer Julian Assange anything from the President because I had not spoken with the President about this issue at all.  However, when speaking with Julian Assange, I told him that if he could provide me information and evidence about who actually gave him the DNC emails, I would then call on President Trump to pardon him. At no time did I offer a deal made by the President, nor did I say I was representing the President. Upon my return, I spoke briefly with Gen. Kelly. I told him that Julian Assange would provide information about the purloined DNC emails in exchange for a pardon. No one followed up with me including Gen. Kelly and that was the last discussion I had on this subject with anyone representing Trump or in his Administration.  

Even though I wasn't successful in getting this message through to the President I still call on him to pardon Julian Assange, who is the true whistleblower of our time.  Finally, we are all holding our breath waiting for an honest investigation into the murder of Seth Rich.

 

Edited by TPS
  • Like (+1) 1
  • Thank you (+1) 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, TPS said:

Rohrabacher responds...

https://www.rohrabacher.com/news

 

There is a lot of misinformation floating out there regarding my meeting with Julian Assange so let me provide some clarity on the matter: 

At no time did I talk to President Trump about Julian Assange.  Likewise, I was not directed by Trump or anyone else connected with him to meet with Julian Assange. 

 

 

 

5 hours ago, B-Man said:

 

I look forward to the correction that completely discredits the story after 48 hours of media meltdown

 

?

 

 

And thanks to TPS, there it is.

 

 

Too bad they didn't start a new thread for this bullsh*t fake news...................maybe next lie......?

 

 

 

 

 

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

‘Another Slap In The Face’: Media Melts Down After Trump Picks Grenell As Acting DNI

by ShelbyTalcott

 

Original Article

 

Journalists began to freak out Wednesday evening after President Donald Trump named U.S. Ambassador to Germany Richard Grenell to be the next acting director of national intelligence. Even before Trump confirmed the position in a series of tweets Wednesday, the media began to question the decision. CNN claimed he would not be nominated beyond acting status because “there is no way he could get confirmed” by the Senate. Following the official announcement, journalists flooded social media with negative opinions about Trump’s pick. “Another slap in the face to my former intel colleagues,” NBC national security and intelligence analyst Ned Price tweeted

 

 

.

  • Thank you (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, B-Man said:

‘Another Slap In The Face’: Media Melts Down After Trump Picks Grenell As Acting DNI

by ShelbyTalcott

 

Original Article

 

Journalists began to freak out Wednesday evening after President Donald Trump named U.S. Ambassador to Germany Richard Grenell to be the next acting director of national intelligence. Even before Trump confirmed the position in a series of tweets Wednesday, the media began to question the decision. CNN claimed he would not be nominated beyond acting status because “there is no way he could get confirmed” by the Senate. Following the official announcement, journalists flooded social media with negative opinions about Trump’s pick. “Another slap in the face to my former intel colleagues,” NBC national security and intelligence analyst Ned Price tweeted

 

 

.

 

If the media hates it, he must be a good pick.

  • Like (+1) 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The Department of Justice recommended 7-9 years, but Attorney General Bill Barr withdrew that request.

That caused four prosecutors to withdraw from the case:

A prosecutor representing the government apologized in court on Thursday “for the confusion” caused by the change of the sentencing recommendation, saying there had been a “miscommunication” between the career prosecutors and the leadership of the Justice Department over the sentencing recommendation. Jackson replied that the original sentencing recommendation was well within the guidelines.

 

Barr’s move to intervene in Stone’s sentencing led to all four members of the prosecution team quitting the case. Jonathan Kravis resigned as an assistant U.S. attorney in Washington and Aaron Zelinsky filed a notice that he would leave his post as a special prosecutor in Washington but would remain as an assistant U.S. attorney in Baltimore. Prosecutors Adam Jed and Michael Marando also withdrew from the case.

 

 

 

 

 

.

  • Thank you (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

After the election for any pardon. The judge was slick in that she gave Stone exactly what Barr asked for. There could hardly be any outrage over the sentencing that would lead to a pardon now.

 

I am still betting he gets it commuted -- but it won't happen until Jackson rules on the new trial motion. I don't think he'll get a pardon.

  • Like (+1) 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

I am still betting he gets it commuted -- but it won't happen until Jackson rules on the new trial motion. I don't think he'll get a pardon.

I agree, I misspoke but I still think he needs to wait until after the election to commute the sentence. 

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Deranged Rhino said:

This is a big development. 

 

Those who've read Lee Smith's book will know why. Kash is the guy to be in that spot if you're looking for actual reform/cleanup/justice.

Worst white supremacist ever. 

  • Like (+1) 1
  • Haha (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said:

This is a big development. 

 

Those who've read Lee Smith's book will know why. Kash is the guy to be in that spot if you're looking for actual reform/cleanup/justice.


Patel having all that Nunes knowledge and feeding it to Grenell, declass finally coming?  Virginia jury pool any better than a DC jury pool?

The way people are screeching "Russia" again, the #resist brigade in full meltdown ... I'm waiting for Impeachment 2.0. ?


 

  • Like (+1) 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

America has criminalized speech and thought with Flynn, Stone, Avenatti and…

Posted on February 23, 2020

Prosecutors these days don’t need to prove that the defendant committed an illegal act. Unencumbered by any judge or jury, prosecutors have the power to ruin people’s lives for the “crime” of what they say or think.

 

That’s what’s happening in the high-profile, politically-tinged cases of Michael Flynn, Roger Stone, Michael Avenatti and others.

 

In the case of Flynn, the former National Security Advisor, the FBI decided beforehand to downplay their interview of him by presenting it almost as a social call.

Then they asked him questions to which they already knew the answers, for the sole purpose of tricking him into a lie or a fudging of the truth.

 

They made no recording of their conversation, so we don’t really know what Flynn said. But according to the two FBI agents in the conversation, Flynn was deceptive in his answers.

 

On that basis, they destroyed this decorated Lieutenant General’s reputation, livelihood and lifetime savings.

 

All this was for the purpose of pressuring him into cooperating with the Russian collusion case they were building against the President, the case that the special prosecutor later debunked. The FBI knew Flynn didn’t possess the financial wherewithal to mount a defense, so they gambled that he would do, say and testify to whatever they asked.

 

It worked. Flynn agreed to cooperate in their investigation and even plead guilty to the charged “crime” of lying to them.

 

Flynn later sought to withdraw his guilty plea after investigation of the FBI showed their blatant political bias and deception in the investigation of the president. The current Attorney General has appointed a career prosecutor to look anew at the entire case.

 

Roger Stone was an unsavory political strategist who was involved with Wikileaks and other shadowy characters in uncovering emails and evidence damaging to Hillary Clinton’s campaign. His arrest was accomplished with a pre-dawn raid on his family home by 29 heavily armed FBI agents.

 

Like Flynn, he was never charged him with any crimes for which he was investigated but was charged instead with lying to the investigators. And for “witness tampering” for his discussions with other people that were interviewed in the investigations.

 

The judge – an Obama appointee – didn’t like some of his political statements outside the courtroom, and imposed a gag order on him. He was convicted by a jury whose forewoman was a Democratic activist that had tweeted her bias in advance of, during and after the trial.

 

 

More at the link: https://theaspenbeat.com/2020/02/23/america-has-criminalized-speech-and-thought-with-flynn-stone-avenatti-and/

 

 

.

  • Like (+1) 3
  • Thank you (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, B-Man said:

America has criminalized speech and thought with Flynn, Stone, Avenatti and…

Posted on February 23, 2020

Prosecutors these days don’t need to prove that the defendant committed an illegal act. Unencumbered by any judge or jury, prosecutors have the power to ruin people’s lives for the “crime” of what they say or think.

 

That’s what’s happening in the high-profile, politically-tinged cases of Michael Flynn, Roger Stone, Michael Avenatti and others.

 

In the case of Flynn, the former National Security Advisor, the FBI decided beforehand to downplay their interview of him by presenting it almost as a social call.

Then they asked him questions to which they already knew the answers, for the sole purpose of tricking him into a lie or a fudging of the truth.

 

They made no recording of their conversation, so we don’t really know what Flynn said. But according to the two FBI agents in the conversation, Flynn was deceptive in his answers.

 

On that basis, they destroyed this decorated Lieutenant General’s reputation, livelihood and lifetime savings.

 

All this was for the purpose of pressuring him into cooperating with the Russian collusion case they were building against the President, the case that the special prosecutor later debunked. The FBI knew Flynn didn’t possess the financial wherewithal to mount a defense, so they gambled that he would do, say and testify to whatever they asked.

 

It worked. Flynn agreed to cooperate in their investigation and even plead guilty to the charged “crime” of lying to them.

 

Flynn later sought to withdraw his guilty plea after investigation of the FBI showed their blatant political bias and deception in the investigation of the president. The current Attorney General has appointed a career prosecutor to look anew at the entire case.

 

Roger Stone was an unsavory political strategist who was involved with Wikileaks and other shadowy characters in uncovering emails and evidence damaging to Hillary Clinton’s campaign. His arrest was accomplished with a pre-dawn raid on his family home by 29 heavily armed FBI agents.

 

Like Flynn, he was never charged him with any crimes for which he was investigated but was charged instead with lying to the investigators. And for “witness tampering” for his discussions with other people that were interviewed in the investigations.

 

The judge – an Obama appointee – didn’t like some of his political statements outside the courtroom, and imposed a gag order on him. He was convicted by a jury whose forewoman was a Democratic activist that had tweeted her bias in advance of, during and after the trial.

 

 

More at the link: https://theaspenbeat.com/2020/02/23/america-has-criminalized-speech-and-thought-with-flynn-stone-avenatti-and/

 

 

Quote

Take Avenatti, the flamboyant and distasteful Democratic activist and lawyer for the stripper who sued the President.

 

The modus operandi of most plaintiff’s lawyers is to threaten to bring a case unless the target of their threat agrees to a payoff. And so Avenatti recently threatened the Nike shoe company with disclosing Nike’s actions in buying off student athletes.

 

Nike went to the cops, who decided that Avenatti’s threat amounted to criminal extortion. At trial, they won a conviction that could imprison Avenatti for the rest of his life.

 

Avenatti is a bad apple, but revealing Nike’s actions is not a crime. It became a crime – the so-called crime of extortion – only when he asked for money not to reveal Nike’s actions.

 

How is it a crime to threaten to do something that is not a crime unless someone pays you money not to?

 

Uh, what the *****? Talk about revising history. Avenetti's crime wasn't that he threatened a lawsuit if they didn't come to terms, his crime was threatening to publicly release information if they didn't pay an exorbitant amount (the vast majority of which was going to go in his pockets.) That's pretty much the definition of extortion.

 

Comparing Avenatti to General Flynn is a hell of an insult to Flynn.

Edited by Koko78
  • Like (+1) 2
  • Thank you (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Koko78 said:

 

 

Comparing Avenatti to General Flynn is a hell of an insult to Flynn.

 

 

 

I would argue that the article was about how the tactics used against Flynn, Avenetti  and others were the same.

 

Not that they are equals.

 

 

 

 

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...