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

[Deranged Rhino]

29 minutes ago, Kemp said:

It's clear to no one that you don't have a side.

 

I don't know what this means, I got lost in the double negative...

 

I've laid out a case, backed by evidence I've shared and continue to share, over the past two years down here. I have not asked people to "just believe me" or to trust evidence they can't see themselves, instead I've asked people to take an honest look at the information provided and do their own thinking. I've been ahead of this story at every turn by months, not days. And so far, despite two+ years of investigations, there hasn't been a single revelation or piece of evidence that's rebutted the conclusion I've reached.

 

Not one. Not one indictment, not one transcript, not one "smoking gun" that has been promised (then retracted) dozens of times by the establishment media since 2017. I'm not a Trump supporter. I did not vote for him. I'm not a conservative nor a republican. I was lucky enough to be in the right spot at the right time when things started to happen on the spook level, that in turn made seeing through the manufactured news MUCH easier. That put me ahead of the game, something I've tried to share with the people who read this board.

 

I've tried to share that insight, not to convince people that I'm right and they're wrong, but to let people judge for themselves. I said from day one I'm open to any and all new evidence that refutes my position - and still am. I run towards disbelief and rebuttal because it's the only way to test the mettle of my own conclusions. Yet despite asking for it, searching for it, begging for it, none has arrived. 

 

...Because it likely does not exist.

 

So you have me, who's provided a position backed by copious amounts of evidence... then you have people such as yourself who have no evidence to back up their positions other than the (prudent in moderation) hope that Mueller is sitting on a stockpile of smoking guns we are unable to see at this time. 

 

Just three years ago they would call one of us conspiracy theorists, and it wouldn't be me  

 

33 minutes ago, Kemp said:

Why do you believe there are so many links between Trump, his employees and Russia?

 

There are no more links between his "employees" (I think you mean campaign staff) and Russia than there were between any other candidates campaign. DC politics is a small circle, international politics even more so when you're talking lobbyists and campaign staff. 

 

This is a disingenuous beginning because you're already trying to ignore parts of the story in order to bolster your preconceived opinion that he's dirty.

 

34 minutes ago, Kemp said:

Why do you believe Trump had all the Ukranians at the inauguration?

 

Same as above. You have to understand what happened in the Ukraine in 2014, how the USIC was involved, who they supported, and why. These are not short, simple questions and answers. They require research and the ability to reassess what you've been fed from mainstream outlets who, at the time, were running a disinformation campaign.

 

The Trump platform on the Ukraine was not changed despite the claims otherwise. This is just one real example of fake news designed to put the cart before the horse. 

 

If you wonder why everything goes back to the Ukraine, I suggest you dig for yourself into what the Podesta Group's history with the Ukraine is, as well as Hillary and Obama's. 

 

Then it'll start to make sense what really happened... 

 

35 minutes ago, Kemp said:

Why do you believe Mnuchin just dropped some sanctions?

 

He dropped sanctions on companies formerly owned and operated by Deripaska after Deripaska had been removed from them. This again is a fake story designed to sway those who have not paid attention to the finer points of this whole narrative by dropping buzz words: "He dropped sanctions!" devoid of proper context.  

 

The reality is Trump's administration used targeted sanctions on Russian oligarchs and Putin directly that were much stronger and more impactful than those proposed by Congress or anything offered by 44's administration. The whole "Trump is soft on Putin" narrative is not backed by any facts if you look at the actual policies put into place. This administration has been a pain in Putin's ass in terms of his geopolitical goals.

 

37 minutes ago, Kemp said:

Why do you believe Trump believes everything Putin says?

 

This is more nonsense designed to appeal to emotion over facts. Trump riffs, speaks off the cuff a lot. It hurts him more than helps him most times because it allows selective editing of his comments to reframe them as being more explosive than they actually are. This story being top of that list. What's more important, what he says or what he does? 

 

Actions speak louder than words. Trump's actions on Russia have been brutal, much more so than any recent administration. If he's an asset of Putin he's a terrible one.

 

39 minutes ago, Kemp said:

How did Trump purchase a property and quickly sell it to a Russian at double what he paid?

 

He spent his life in real estate. It's what he does. There's nothing illegal or nefarious about this UNLESS you've already put the cart before the horse and presumed him to be guilty - then selling property to Russians looks like money laundering for political favors! 

 

... What does getting 500k for a speech, paid for by Putin's government equate to by this standard? 

 

39 minutes ago, Kemp said:

You believe Manafort is a plant. Does that mean you believe he is a crook who the Deep State took advantage of or that he is not a crook?

 

Manafort is dirty AF. Said that since day one. That's why he was planted, to smear up by association and to back engineer FISA warrants. 

 

Look into what Manafort was charged with specifically. None of it has anything to do with Trump or his work for Trump's campaign and ALL of it happened while Manafort was in an active partnership with Tony and John Podesta...

 

... the same John Podesta who was running HRC's campaign. That's not speculation. That's a fact. So if Trump is somehow guilty by association with Manafort, for crimes that happened before he was ever on Trump's staff or before Trump was a candidate himself - what does that make Tony and John Podesta?

 

41 minutes ago, Kemp said:

With or without Trump's knowledge, do you believe that Russians tried to sway the election towards Trump?

 

Russia's tried to meddle in the election. I've never denied this. The debatable point is how much success they had.

 

They did NOT favor Trump over Clinton. They ran ads for both (for a paltry 10k, which isn't enough to make a dent in anyone's social media consumption). Their goal was not Trump over Clinton, their goal was CHAOS - which they got by supporting both sides against the middle. Which, thanks to the narrative engineers, they got in spades. 

 

42 minutes ago, Kemp said:

Why did Manafort send voter info to Ukraine and/or Russia?

 

That story has already been retracted - originally it was framed to imply he passed it on directly to Deripaska. Why would they lead with that, only to retract it within 24 hours? Because they wanted to misinform their readers intentionally, knowing people believe what they first hear. 

 

Manafort shared information with a long time employee... who happened to have ties to Podesta Group and Mercury. So you should be asking why Manafort shared campaign information with the other party... you know, like a plant would do. 

 

43 minutes ago, Kemp said:

Trump may turn out to be innocent, but to deny that there are a lot of oddities going on with Trump and Russia defies facts.

 

As evidence above, there aren't things that "defies facts" (whatever that means). There's only supposition based on partisan hackery. There's zero evidence or substance to any of what you listed above... Just supposition, backed by two years of the establishment media and USIC lying to you about what happened to cover their own asses.

 

But there's TONS of evidence to support the position I've laid out. 

 

Start here:

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

 

Pay attention to page 83-84. 

 

This document describes the origin of this entire thing. You can't understand what is happening without first understanding what Admiral Rogers uncovered in April of 2016.

 

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

 

 

 

 

[Deranged Rhino]

 

 

Just a guy on Twitter, but the point is solid. This is precisely what the NYT's piece is attempting to do. They're attempting to admit they've been lying but couching it in a phony "it was because we were scared he was a Russian agent!". 

 

Smells like the stories they ran about no WMD after the invasion in 2003... "We knew it was bull#### but we were worried it wasn't!" 

 

 

[Deranged Rhino]

 

Turley trying to run this up the flag pole: "We weren't lying, we were just seeing things differently"

 

 

[Deranged Rhino]

 

[Deranged Rhino]

This is epic spin: 

 

 

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

 

 

[DC Tom]

25 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

Turley trying to run this up the flag pole: "We weren't lying, we were just seeing things differently"

 

 

 

Yeah...no.  Cognitive bias is what we see now.  It doesn't explain how opposition research leads to an intelligence investigation based on sketchy FISA warrants.

[B-Man]

MORE MUELLER MADNESS

The hits keep on coming from the New York Times and their deep state adjunct within the government. Today’s page-one story comes courtesy of Adam Goldman, Michael Schmidt, and Nicholas Fandos under the headline “F.B.I. Opened Inquiry Into Whether Trump Was Secretly Working on Behalf of Russia” (accessible here on Outline). Last night Paul Mirengoff treated the Times story with care and penetration in the nearby post “Report: FBI opened inquiry into whether Trump was working for the Russians.”

 

Paul exposes the absurdity of the substance of the story (i.e., the leaks aimed at Trump). As Paul says, the story reveals the FBI’s shocking bad faith. In a rational world, this story would be understood as an exploding cigar. It reveals a scandal, but the scandal is located inside the FBI. What we have here is a graphic illustration of the forces against which President Trump has contended for the past two years (including the Times). They mean to remove him from office.

 

Addressing the substance of the story, Paul overlooked this classic chestnut buried inside it: “Other factors fueled the F.B.I.’s concerns, according to the people familiar with the inquiry. Christopher Steele, a former British spy who worked as an F.B.I. informant, had compiled memos in mid-2016 containing unsubstantiated claims that Russian officials tried to obtain influence over Mr. Trump by preparing to blackmail and bribe him.”

 

The Steele Dossier is the lurid icing on this fetid cake. The Times story somehow omits to mention that the Steele Dossier derived from the Clinton presidential campaign and the Democratic National Committee via cutouts including the Perkins Coie law firm and Fusion GPS.

 

The Times story exposes more than one scandal. It exposes the overlapping scandals of which Trump is the victim, not the perpetrator. They are the biggest scandals in American political history.

 

One does not need to be a clinician to get a handle on the madness that permeates the Times story. There is an utter lack of self-awareness. The actors here — the Times and their sources — share the understanding that the story reflects poorly on Trump. As Paul puts it, however: “If it’s true that the FBI undertook the investigation described by the Times, this tells us plenty about the FBI. It tells us nothing about Trump.”

 

Quotable quote: “The special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, took over the inquiry into Mr. Trump when he was appointed, days after F.B.I. officials opened it.”

 

 

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2019/01/more-mueller-madness-16.php

Edited January 12, 2019 by B-Man

[Deranged Rhino]

1 minute ago, B-Man said:

MORE MUELLER MADNESS

The hits keep on coming from the New York Times and their deep state adjunct within the government. Today’s page-one story comes courtesy of Adam Goldman, Michael Schmidt, and Nicholas Fandos under the headline “F.B.I. Opened Inquiry Into Whether Trump Was Secretly Working on Behalf of Russia” (accessible here on Outline). Last night Paul Mirengoff treated the Times story with care and penetration in the nearby post “Report: FBI opened inquiry into whether Trump was working for the Russians.”

 

Paul exposes the absurdity of the substance of the story (i.e., the leaks aimed at Trump). As Paul says, the story reveals the FBI’s shocking bad faith. In a rational world, this story would be understood as an exploding cigar. It reveals a scandal, but the scandal is located inside the FBI. What we have here is a graphic illustration of the forces against which President Trump has contended for the past two years (including the Times). They mean to remove him from office.

 

Addressing the substance of the story, Paul overlooked this classic chestnut buried inside it: “Other factors fueled the F.B.I.’s concerns, according to the people familiar with the inquiry. Christopher Steele, a former British spy who worked as an F.B.I. informant, had compiled memos in mid-2016 containing unsubstantiated claims that Russian officials tried to obtain influence over Mr. Trump by preparing to blackmail and bribe him.”

 

The Steele Dossier is the lurid icing on this fetid cake. The Times story somehow omits to mention that the Steele Dossier derived from the Clinton presidential campaign and the Democratic National Committee via cutouts including the Perkins Coie law firm and Fusion GPS.

 

The Times story exposes more than one scandal. It exposes the overlapping scandals of which Trump is the victim, not the perpetrator. They are the biggest scandals in American political history.

 

One does not need to be a clinician to get a handle on the madness that permeates the Times story. There is an utter lack of self-awareness. The actors here — the Times and their sources — share the understanding that the story reflects poorly on Trump. As Paul puts it, however: “If it’s true that the FBI undertook the investigation described by the Times, this tells us plenty about the FBI. It tells us nothing about Trump.”

 

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2019/01/more-mueller-madness-16.php

 

Quotable quote: “The special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, took over the inquiry into Mr. Trump when he was appointed, days after F.B.I. officials opened it.”

 

It was always a coup, launched because Trump was a threat to the establishment class on both sides of the uniparty aisle, specifically the foreign policy lobbyists and MiC who wanted another expansion of our regime change foreign policy. 

 

Who needs Russia to tilt an election when you have the powers of the USIC and establishment medi behind you? 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

10 hours ago, Kemp said:

 

You let me know when you can find anyone here who has NOT made up their mind as to how this will play out. One side will turn out to be right, the other wrong. People disagree now which side will turn out to be right.

 

For people who share my viewpoint, the notion that all bad news for the other side can be explained as conspiracy is the oddest part. For the people on the other side, it's clear that a conspiracy by the "Deep State" is behind everything against Trump.

The most fascinating thing to me is that even if you agree with Trump on policy, that someone cannot see that on a personal level, Trump has done a lot of crooked things and that he has a personality you would never accept on a personal level. You can say that most politicians are crooked to some extent, but it's absurd to think that Trump is not a liar and a crook. There is enough evidence of it that has been documented to believe it's not true.

Is there anyone here that still believes that Trump has not been involved in money laundering? Yeah, I know that some here will say it's not true, but if they have the ability to think and deduct, they are lying if they say they don't think he may have been involved in money laundering.

 

The collusion stuff is up-for-grabs, but without a doubt there's a lot of odd coincidences linking Trump and his inner circle with Russia in many unusual ways.

Thanks for the well thought out reply.  I don't agree with any of it, and I understood your prior post to mean that you were undecided and awaiting the final word.

 

I've been trying to think of the best way to respond.  It's an anonymous message board but I'm really not interested in name calling or insulting someone.  

 

My biggest issue with your position is "The collusion stuff is up-for-grabs".  It isn't, and if you think it is at this point, I think  you're naive. 

 

If DJT is Boris Badinov, we have all been let down by the elected officials and law enforcement agencies entrusted to safeguard our process.  In fact, if that's the case, the DOJ and FBI are either grossly incompetent or complicit in allowing DJT to serve as president if that's the case.

 

if he's not Boris Badinov, as appears likely given the fact that  Boy Scout Bob Mueller is taking his own sweet time sending his minions to kick down doors of people guilty of...anything they can turn up, then all you have is the weaponization of the intelligence community to disrupt and taint the opposition candidate supported by 60m Americans with the sole purpose being to deny them the power of their vote. 

 

Personally, I don't care if Trump is someone I'd hang out with or not. It's never been important to me. One of my liberal buddies said to me one day "Trump is despicable, but you know Obama is a good guy that you just disagree with on policy matters.". He was offended when I told him how limited his vision of the world was, that he was so tied up in his own judgement it was inconceivable that someone else might not like Obama as a human being.

 

As for all the other anecdotal "facts" about Trump, it might help to be more specific than he's a worser liar than any of the previous liars that you like.

7 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

Turley trying to run this up the flag pole: "We weren't lying, we were just seeing things differently"

 

 

I was just making this point in my prior message.  If they were wrong, they are either  grossly incompetent or knee deep in corruption.  They are knee deep in corruption. 

Edited January 13, 2019 by leh-nerd skin-erd

[Deranged Rhino]

 

 

[njbuff]

3 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said:

This is epic spin: 

 

 

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

 

 

 

Just about all the top guys at the FBI got fired and so that makes Russia as a good guy?

 

Ok, got it.

[4merper4mer]

3 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said:

This is epic spin: 

 

 

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

 

 

Why is Walsh complaining?  Life's been good to him so far.

[snafu]

2 hours ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

Thanks for the well thought out reply.  I don't agree with any of it, and I understood your prior post to mean that you were undecided and awaiting the final word.

 

I've been trying to think of the best way to respond.  It's an anonymous message board but I'm really not interested in name calling or insulting someone.  

 

My biggest issue with your position is "The collusion stuff is up-for-grabs".  It isn't, and if you think it is at this point, I think  you're naive. 

 

If DJT is Boris Badinov, we have all been let down by the elected officials and law enforcement agencies entrusted to safeguard our process.  In fact, if that's the case, the DOJ and FBI are either grossly incompetent or complicit in allowing DJT to serve as president if that's the case.

 

if he's not Boris Badinov, as appears likely given the fact that  Boy Scout Bob Mueller is taking his own sweet time sending his minions to kick down doors of people guilty of...anything they can turn up, then all you have is the weaponization of the intelligence community to disrupt and taint the opposition candidate supported by 60+% of the American people with the sole purpose being to deny them the power of their vote. 

 

Personally, I don't care if Trump is someone I'd hang out with or not. It's never been important to me. One of my liberal buddies said to me one day "Trump is despicable, but you know Obama is a good guy that you just disagree with on policy matters.". He was offended when I told him how limited his vision of the world was, that he was so tied up in his own judgement it was inconceivable that someone else might not like Obama as a human being.

 

As for all the other anecdotal "facts" about Trump, it might help to be more specific than he's a worser liar than any of the previous liars that you like.

I was just making this point in my prior message.  If they were wrong, they are either  grossly incompetent or knee deep in corruption.  They are knee deep in corruption. 

 

I have mockingly posted at Tiberius a lot of times "hurry Mueller, hurry".

And recently, I've thought much like your post.  If Mueller had anything on Trump, why the hell has he let Trump govern without unleashing  a true and fact-based cloud on his authority to act as President. For example, Kavanaugh wasn't appointed too long ago.  If Mueller had something/anything, you'd think he'd announce it so that the fight over Trump nominating a Supe would have met an actual Constitutional issue about whether Trump's authority to act was legitimate (instead of the pathetic clown show it turned into).

 

 

 

[Deranged Rhino]

 

[DC Tom]

55 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

 

Did Trump "conceal" details?  Or was he just smart enough to not say something conspiratorial like "I'll have more flexibility after the election" on a hot mic?

 

You know what this is?  Trying to deligitimize him prior to him either nominating Ginsburg's replacement, or to him declaring a national emergency over the wall.  The latter being hilarious, as it basically implies that Trump is doing Putin's bidding by securing the US borders... 

[Deranged Rhino]

13 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

Did Trump "conceal" details?  Or was he just smart enough to not say something conspiratorial like "I'll have more flexibility after the election" on a hot mic?

 

You know what this is?  Trying to deligitimize him prior to him either nominating Ginsburg's replacement, or to him declaring a national emergency over the wall.  The latter being hilarious, as it basically implies that Trump is doing Putin's bidding by securing the US borders... 

 

Personally I think they're trying to get out ahead of the OIG FISA report which is in the final polish stage, but the Ginsburg/border thought is also very possible. 

[GG]

And there’s the escape hatch Greggy.  When all is said and done, the story will be spun that the FBI were heros not because they thought Trump was a Russian asset, but because he was incompetent and they were trying to save America.  That’s what all the narratives have been about and are starting to point to that conclusion.  

[Kemp]

12 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

Personally I think they're trying to get out ahead of the OIG FISA report which is in the final polish stage, but the Ginsburg/border thought is also very possible. 

 

Some more questions.

 

Manafort was planted by whom and why?

 

Is Mueller part of the Deep State? Pence? Ryan?

 

Besides Trump, who isn't part of the Deep State?

 

Why did Trump hide details of meetings with Putin?

 

What's your opinion of Graham in all of this?

 

Do you believe that Rohrbacher and some other members of Congress took money from Russia? If yes, Is that okay?

 

I realize you don't have to answer any of these. Just curious as to your opinion.

 

By the way, I am impressed that you believe you are ahead of all of this as it unfolds. Are you part of the Deep State or do you claim to have an inside connection to the Deep State?

[3rdnlng]

33 minutes ago, Kemp said:

 

Some more questions.

 

Manafort was planted by whom and why?

 

Is Mueller part of the Deep State? Pence? Ryan?

 

Besides Trump, who isn't part of the Deep State?

 

Why did Trump hide details of meetings with Putin?

 

What's your opinion of Graham in all of this?

 

Do you believe that Rohrbacher and some other members of Congress took money from Russia? If yes, Is that okay?

 

I realize you don't have to answer any of these. Just curious as to your opinion.

 

By the way, I am impressed that you believe you are ahead of all of this as it unfolds. Are you part of the Deep State or do you claim to have an inside connection to the Deep State?

Generally speaking your questions are based on ignorance and false framing. Greg has been ahead of all this for the last two years or so. He has been acting as an investigative journalist and is doing so with collaboration with other people doing the same. Basically tv or internet news hasn't given me any "breaking news" that hasn't been broken first here, well in advance of the networks.

 

You've come into the discussion here after those two years with much of the skepticism that most of us had back then. Greg had to win us over with facts and that took a mountain of work and discussion. You stop down here on occasion and want to relitigate the last two years for your own edification. It's as if you came late to a meeting involving a large number of people and want everyone to review the first 15 minutes that you missed. My answer to you would be to read the ***** threads.

[Koko78]

18 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

My answer to you would be to read the ***** threads.

 

Why would he do that? If no one rehashes the previous two years worth of posts for his easy consumption, he can simply declare victory, drop the mic, and walk away proud that he 'showed PPP'.