Het verhoor door een comité van de Democraten in het Huis van Afgevaardigden van speciaal aanklager Robert Mueller n.a.v. diens rapportage over Russiagate, was een anticlimax voor de Democraten, Mueller gaf op veel vragen geen antwoord en hij gaf verder de indruk het eigen rapport niet of slecht te kennen…….
Over deze zaak hieronder twee artikelen, de eerste van Consortium News en de tweede van Zero Hedge, over dat tweede artikel het volgende:
Robert
Mueller hoogstwaarschijnlijk niet de schrijver van eigen rapport
Robert
Mueller die afgelopen week moest getuigen over ‘eigen’ rapport*,
leek voor een groot deel van de tijd wel dement, zo kon hij (als gezegd) veel vragen niet beantwoorden en niet zelden leek het erop dat hij z’n eigen
rapport niet eens kende…..
Niet zo
vreemd als je bedenkt dat het grootste deel van het team van
aanklagers dat Mueller ter zijde stond bestond uit donoren van
Hillary Clinton! (ha! ha! ha! ha!, de ware misdadiger was Clinton en met de Russiagate leugen kon ze haar eigen zeer kwalijke rol verhullen binnen de Democratische Partij, een misdadige rol van haar en haar campagneteam tijdens de voorverkiezingen t.b.v. de democratische presidentskandidaat in 2016……
Nogmaals
is duidelijk dat het team van Mueller en hijzelf geen flinter aan
bewijs hebben dat Rusland inderdaad de boel heeft gemanipuleerd…..
Je moest intussen ook wel een imbeciel zijn als je dat hele
achterlijke verhaal nog gelooft, zoals de reguliere westerse media en
het overgrote deel van de westerse politici deze nonsens keer op keer blijven herhalen als was het een feit, ondanks dat er geen bewijzen zijn die e.e.a. bevestigen….. Dit alles terwijl er meters aan bewijs zijn voor
bemoeienissen van de VS met verkiezingen in andere landen, dit nog
naast het op poten zetten van gewelddadige opstanden die met staatsgrepen moesten (en moeten) eindigen, zoals de VS al zo vaak heeft
gedaan, om nog maar te zwijgen over de illegale oorlogen die de VS keer op keer begint…….
Tyler
Durden is de schrijver van het tweede artikel hieronder dat eerder op
Zero Hedge verscheen (zie ook de link onder zijn artikel*):
CAMPAIGN
2016, COMMENTARY, INTELLIGENCE, LEGAL, MEDIA, POLITICS, RUSSIA, RUSSIAGATE,
Democrats
Blowing on Embers With a Politicized Mueller
July
25, 2019
By Joe
LauriaSpecial
to Consortium News
Former
Russiagate special counsel Robert Mueller’s appearance before the
Democratic-controlled House Judiciary and Intelligence Committees on
Wednesday was an exercise by the Democrats of trying to extract
statements that would keep Russiagate alive and an attempt by the
Republicans to finish off the story once and for all.
Appearing
to be feigning, or actually suffering early signs of senility, the
nearly 75-year old Mueller disappointed both parties and the public.
He declined to answer 198 questions, according to a
count by
NBC News. When he did answer he was often barely intelligible and
mostly stuck to what was in his final report, though he often had to
fumble through pages to find passages he could not recall, eating
into committee members’ five-minute time limit.
Mueller
especially refused to comment on the process of his investigation,
such as who he did or did not interview, what countries his
investigators visited and he even dodged discussing some relevant
points of law. It was an abdication of his responsibility to U.S.
taxpayers who footed his roughly $30-million, 22-month probe.
But
when it came to making political statements, the former FBI director
suddenly rediscovered his mental acuity. He went way beyond his
report to say, without prosecutorial evidence, that he agreed with
the assessment of then CIA Director Mike Pompeo that WikiLeaks is
a “non-state, hostile intelligence agency.”
Mueller
called “illegal” WikiLeak‘s
obtaining the Podesta and DNC emails, an act of journalism. In the
2016 election, the Espionage Act would not apply as the DNC and
Podesta emails were not classified. Nor has WikiLeaks been
accused by anyone of stealing the emails. And yet the foremost law
enforcement figure in the U.S. accused WikiLeaks of
breaking the law merely for publishing.
Though
Mueller’s report makes no mention of The
Guardian’s
tale that former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort
visited WikiLeaks publisher
Julian Assange in the Ecuadorian embassy, when questioned on this,
Mueller refused to refute the story, for which there isn’t a scrap
of evidence. That was another purely political and not legal
intervention from the lawman.
Russia, Russia, Russia
Mueller:
Came to when he wanted to make a political point. (Flickr)
While
Mueller concluded there was no evidence of a conspiracy between
Russia and the Trump campaign to throw the 2016 election, he has not
let up on the most politicized part of his message: that Russia
interfered “massively” in “our democracy” and is still doing
it. There was no waffling from Mueller when it came to this question.
He
bases this on his indictment of 12 GRU Russian intelligence against
who he alleges hacked the DNC emails and transmitted them
to WikiLeaks.
Mueller knows those agents will never be arrested and brought to a
courtroom to have his charges tested. In that sense the indictment
was less a legal than a political document.
Among
the inaccuracies about Russigaate that were recycled at the
hearing is that the St. Petersburg-based Internet Research Agency (IRA) spent $1.25 million in the United States to influence the election.
That figure belonged to a unit that acted worldwide, not just in the
U.S., according to Mueller’s indictment.
In fact it only spent $100,000 on Facebook ads, half coming after the
election, and as even Mueller pointed out, some were anti-Trump.
Cambridge
Analytica had
5,000 data points on 240 million Americans, some of it bought from
Facebook, that gave an enormous advantage for targeted ads to the
Trump campaign. It paid at
least $5.9 million to the company co-founded by Trump’s campaign
strategist Steve Bannon. But we are supposed to believe that a
comparatively paltry number of social media messages from the
IRA threw the
election.
Mueller
implied in his testimony that there was a link between the IRA and
the Russian government despite anorder from
a judge for him to stop making that connection. In focusing again on
Russia, no member of Congress from either party raised the content of
the leaked emails.
IRA
headquarters in St. Petersburg (Wikimedia Commons)
For
the Democrats especially, it is all about the source, who is
irrelevant, since no one disputes the accuracy of the emails that
exposed Hillary Clinton. (That the source of authentic documents is
irrelevant is demonstrated by The
Wall Street Journal and
other major media using anonymous drop boxes pioneered by WikiLeaks.)
Were a foreign power to spread disinformation about candidates in a
U.S. election (something the candidates do to each other all the
time) that would be sabotage. But the leaking and publication of the
Clinton emails was information valuable to American voters.
And WikiLeaks would
have published Trump emails, but it never received any,
Editor-in-Chief Kristinn Hrafnsson told Consortium
New‘s
webcast CN
Live!
No
Power to Exonerate
With
“collusion” off the table, the Democrats have been obsessed with
Trump allegedly obstructing an investigation that found no underlying
crime. That’s something like being arrested for resisting arrest
when you’ve committed no other infraction.
In
his morning testimony, Mueller amplified the misperception that the
only reason he didn’t charge Trump with obstruction is because of a
Justice Department Office of Legal Counsel policy that a sitting
president can’t be indicted.
But
then Mueller came back from a break in the hearing to issue a
“correction.” It was not true that he had concluded there’d
been obstruction but was blocked by the OLC policy, he said. In fact
he never concluded that there had been obstruction at all. “We
didn’t make a decision about culpability,” Mueller said. “We
didn’t go down that road.”
Instead
of leaving it at that, Mueller said in his report and testimony that
Trump was not “exonerated” of an obstruction charge. That led to
blaring headlines Wednesday morning while the hearing was still going
on. “Trump was not exonerated by my report, Robert Mueller tells
Congress,” said the BBC. “Mueller Report Did Not Exonerate Trump,
Mueller Says,” blared the HuffPost.
But
in what may have been the most embarrassing moment for Mueller,
Republican Congressman Michael Turner (R-OH) pointed out that a
prosecutor does not have the power to exonerate anyone. A prosecutor
prosecutes.
Rep.
Michael Turner
“Mr.
Mueller, does the Attorney General have the power or authority to
exonerate?” Turner asked the witness. “What I’m putting up here
is the United States code. This is where the Attorney General gets
his power. And the constitution … .
“Mr.
Mueller, nowhere in these [documents] … is there a process or
description on ‘exonerate.’ There’s no office of exoneration at
the Attorney General’s office. … Mr. Mueller, would you agree
with me that the Attorney General does not have the power to
exonerate?”
“I’m
going to pass on that,” Mueller replied.
“Why?”
Turner asked.
“Because
it embroils us in a legal discussion, and I’m not prepared to do a
legal discussion in that arena,” Mueller said.
Pointing
to a CNN headline that had just appeared, “MUELLER: TRUMP WAS NOT
EXONERATED,” Turner said: “What you know is, that this can’t
say, ‘Mueller exonerated Trump,’ because you don’t have the
power or authority to exonerate Trump. You have no more power to
declare him exonerated than you have the power to declare him
Anderson Cooper.”
Turner
said: “The statement about exoneration is misleading, and it’s
meaningless. It colors this investigation— one word of out the
entire portion of your report. And it’s a meaningless word that has
no legal meaning, and it has colored your entire report.”
Who
is a Spy for Whom?
Mueller
also took a pass every time the Steele dossier was raised, which it
first was by Rep. David Nunes (R-CA):
“Despite
acknowledging dossier allegations as being salacious and unverified,
former FBI Director James Comey briefed those allegations to
President Obama and President-elect Trump. Those briefings
conveniently leaked to the press, resulting in the publication of the
dossier and launching thousands of false press stories based on the
word of a foreign ex-spy, one who admitted he was desperate that
Trump lose the election and who was eventually fired as an FBI source
for leaking to the press.
“And
the entire investigation was open based not on Five Eyes
intelligence, but on a tip from a foreign politician about a
conversation involving Joseph Mifsud. He’s a Maltese diplomat who’s
widely portrayed as a Russian agent, but seems to have for more
connections with Western governments, including our own FBI and our
own State Department, than with Russia.”
When
Nunes pointed out to Mueller that Konstantin Kilimnik, a Manafort
business associate, whom Mueller’s report identifies as having ties
to Russian intelligence, was actually a U.S. State Departmentasset,
Mueller refused to comment saying he was “loath” to get into it.
This
Schiff Has Sailed
The
chairman of the Intelligence Committee, Adam Schiff (R-CA) used the
word “lies” 19 times in his opening statement, which contained at
least that many.
The
central one was this:
“Your
investigation determined that the Trump campaign, including Donald
Trump himself, knew that a foreign power was intervening in our
election and welcomed it, built Russian meddling into their strategy
and used it.
Disloyalty
to country. Those are strong words, but how else are we to describe a
presidential campaign which did not inform the authorities of a
foreign offer of dirt on their opponent, which did not publicly shun
it or turn it away, but which instead invited it, encouraged it and
made full use of it?”
Schiff
reluctantly admitted that no Trump conspiracy with Russia was
uncovered, but said the “crime” of disloyalty was even worse.
“Disloyalty
to country violates the very oath of citizenship, our devotion to a
core principle on which our nation was founded that we, the people
and not some foreign power that wishes us ill, we decide who governs
us,” said Schiff.
It
was pure fantasy.
Mueller
should have taken a pass on that one too.
Joe
Lauria is editor-in-chief of Consortium News and a former
correspondent for The
Wall Street Journal, Boston Globe, Sunday
Times of
London and numerous other newspapers. He can be reached
at joelauria@consortiumnews.com and
followed on Twitter @unjoe .
Tags: Adam
Schiff Joe
Lauria Robert
Mueller Russiagate
===============================
James
Clapper Suggests Mueller Was “Just A Figurehead” And Didn’t
Even Write His Own Report
by Tyler
Durden
Fri,
07/26/2019 – 09:30
Former
Director of National Intelligence James Clapper said on Thursday that
Robert Mueller
could just be a “figurehead” who may not have been involved
in writing “his” own report, according
to The
Gateway Pundit.
The
comments came during a CNN interview discussing
why Robert Mueller didn’t seem to have “command” over the
report’s contents while testifying on Capitol Hill yesterday.
Clapper
was heavily involved in the coup against President Donald Trump and
was an advocate for the Russia hoax theory earlier on.
Mueller’s
role was likely more of a “CEO”, he said. “I
think his role as a special prosecutor was a lot more like a CEO
where he oversaw the operations but did not engage in interrogating
witnesses or actually writing the report.”
James Clapper, one of the originators of the Collusion Hoax, suggests Mueller was just a figurehead, who was not involved in writing his report
Then who did?
Anti-Trump zealots who went to Hillary’s Election wake, & represented the Clinton Foundation & Hillary’s hammer man
(Dit is een still van een video die ik niet kan overnemen en waar na het voorgaande niets nieuws wordt verteld dan het CEO verhaal in het begin van dit artikel op Zero Hedge, zie het origineel)
And
naturally, as the article asks, if Mueller didn’t write
the report, was it left to the anti-Trump zealots that filled his
team? The piece notes that nearly “every
single prosecutor on Mueller’s team was a Hillary/Obama donor.”
Lead
prosecutor Andrew Weissman was with Hillary Clinton on election night
and praised acting AG Sally Yates for not enforcing Trump’s travel
ban. Aaron Zebley, another Mueller team member, represented the IT
aide that smashed Clinton’s Blackberrys while under subpoena.
Zebley
was next to Mueller on Wednesday to “advise” him on
questions and was clearly more well versed on the report than Mueller
himself was.
Mueller’s
embarrassing testimony – during which he admitted he
wasn’t even familiar with Fusion GPS – is
being panned not only by conservatives, but also by Democrats, as
we reported yesterday.
Conservative
columnist Byron York wrote yesterday:
“Mueller’s
performance raised questions that reached far beyond one appearance
before one committee. It
called into doubt the degree to which Mueller was in charge of the
entire special counsel investigation.”
Tag Politics
================================
*
Zie: ‘Michael Moore Joins Chorus Of Defeated Democrats Panning “Frail, Forgetful” Mueller Testimony‘
Zie ook:
‘WaPo waarschuwt voor Russische digitale controle over de hersenen van VS burgers‘
”Geheime diensten in westen geven toe dat spioneren via het G5 netwerk praktisch onmogelijk is……..‘
‘1984 het boek van George Orwell: niet langer fictie…….‘
‘Het westen vervolgt journalist Assange, Rusland laat journalist vrij na onrust over diens gevangenschap‘ (zie daarin ook de links naar andere berichten over Assange)
‘Avaaz valt met fake news en desinformatie ‘fake news en desinformatie‘ aan……’ (zie in dat bericht ook de link naar een ander artikel met een smerige rol van Avaaz)
‘Rob Jetten (D66 fractievoorzitter) liegt een fikse slag in de rondte in EU verkiezingspraatje‘
‘Facebook stelt klimaatsceptisch Daily Caller aan als ‘factchecker…’ ha! ha! ha! ha! ha!‘
‘Russiagate: nog overtuigd van bestaan daarvan? Lees dit!‘
‘Putin vraagt en Trump levert: een lijst met ‘alle goede zaken die Trump voor Rusland
‘Obama gaf toe dat de DNC e-mails expres door de DNC werden gelekt naar Wikileaks….!!!!‘
‘Putin vraagt en Trump levert: een lijst met ‘alle goede zaken die Trump voor Rusland regelde’‘
‘Russiagate? Britaingate zal je bedoelen!‘
‘New York Times ‘bewijzen’ voor Russiagate vallen door de mand……‘
‘BNR ‘denkt’ als één van de vele mediaorganen nog steeds dat Russiagate werkelijk plaats vond‘
‘Bedrijf dat voor ‘Russische bots’ waarschuwde, heeft een leger met nep-Russische bots‘
‘Politico rapport bevestigt: Russiagate is een hoax‘
‘BBC: Rusland ‘misbruikt humor’ om Russiagate te ontkrachten….. ha! ha! ha! ha! ha!‘
‘Uitgelekte telefoongesprekken tussen Trump en Putin bewijzen dat ‘Russiagaters gelijk hebben……’‘
‘Russiagate en Assange: The Guardian wordt nu zelfs door collega’s voor zot uitgemaakt‘
En over het grote slachtoffer in het Russiagate verhaal, Julian Assange:
‘Belangrijk account voor de verdediging Julian Assange geblokkeerd door Twitter‘
‘Julian Assange: Speciaal VN rapporteur martelen heeft grote twijfels bij onafhankelijkheid rechter‘
‘Het westen vervolgt journalist Assange, Rusland laat journalist vrij na onrust over diens gevangenschap‘ (en nog hadden de reguliere media een grote bek over Rusland, media die niet anders hebben gedaan dan collega Assange besmeuren…..)
‘VN rapport: Assange is gedemoniseerd en psychisch gemarteld‘
‘Media wakker geschrokken en ontwaken in Assange nachtmerrie‘
‘Dag van Persvrijheid: Assange wordt zoveel mogelijk uitermate hypocriet gemeden door de pers‘
‘Julian Assange (brekend nieuws) veroordeeld tot 50 weken gevangenisstraf……‘
‘Chelsea Manning blijft voor onbepaalde tijd in de gevangenis‘
‘Julian Assanges vervolging is de genadeklap voor klokkenluiders en (echte) journalisten‘ (zie ook de iets oudere links in dat bericht)
‘WhiteHouse: US, Ecuador Coordinating About Future Of Assange Asylum‘
‘De prijs op het hoofd van Julian Assange: 1 miljard dollar…..‘
‘WhiteHouse: US, Ecuador Coordinating About Future Of Assange Asylum‘
