Announcement

Collapse

Forum Rules - You must read(Updated!)

DISCLAIMER

You agree to NOT use this site or its affiliated sites, services you may have access to as a result of being a member here (subscriber or otherwise), to post items (images, textual material, etc.) that are pornographic in nature, illegal in the United States and/or the country you reside in, support or encourage illegal activities (e.g., terrorism), advertise for your own personal profit, or send unsolicited messages (i.e. SPAM) to members or non-members.

AND

You agree that if any clause or component of this document is found to not be legally binding in a court of law of proper jurisdiction then the remainder of this document shall remain fully binding and in full force.

AND

You agree to NOT hold Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. (makers of the forum software), uspoliticsonline.com, sites affiliated with uspoliticsonline.com, its administrators, its moderators, others associated with its operation, and its owners liable for any and all of the following (in whole or in part):
Personal insults/attacks by other members.
The content posted by other members, whether directed at you personally or a label/classification you associate with. This includes remarks you consider to be libelous or slanderous in any way.
Any financial or time loss due to your participation here or as a result of something you read at this site, including posts/PMs by other members and feature(s)/software available at the domain uspoliticsonline.com.
The dissemination of any personal information about you as a result of either your negligence (e.g. staying logged into a computer that others have access to) or willingness to post such information on a public and or private forum, private message or chat box. This includes using your real name or other details that could allow other members and/or the general public to determine your true identity. You are prohibited from using your real name on these forums, either as your username or in posts / PMs you write.

FORUM RULES, IN ADDITION TO THE DISCLAIMER

1. These rules apply to all sections of USPOL, including public and private forums, blogs, and visitor messages.

2. You cannot attack and/or personally insult someone. You cannot bait other forum members; this includes referring to posters by derogatory terms. Please, remain courteous and respectful to all forum members at all times. You agree to take responsibility for reporting such posts when you come across them. Please, use the ignore feature if need be. Any member who intentionally and continually posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response, or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion, may be regarded as a troll by staff, and have their account suspended or banned.

3. You cannot harass (sexually or otherwise) other members. This includes malicious, slanderous, or defamatory comments. If you are not sure if something you write is inappropriate or not then don't say it. Err on the side of caution.

4. Copying and Pasting Articles, and Starting New Threads. You cannot simply cut and paste in posts or when starting threads. You MUST provide the identifying information (source, author, date, and URL). You must also offer some original thoughts along with the cut and paste. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts from the article. Excerpts really shouldnt be more then a paragraph or two. Furthermore, if you use images or other copyrighted material in your posts or signature you must have permission of the copyright holder unless you know for a fact that the image is in the public domain. In addition:
a. It must include the identifying information; e.g., where available, the author, the publication, the date, the URL.
b. The member must offer some context, including: How did you hear of this article? What is your opinion? Why is it important to you? Why should it be important to forum readers? The more context you provide, the more you assist others in gauging the excerpted information's significance.
c. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts, not the whole thing or even the majority of the whole thing to encourage people to read the entire article.

A violation of any of the above will result in the deletion or closing of the post or thread and could earn you a warning or suspension. If you have any questions concering any of the above please PM a moderator and we will be happy to clarify.

5. You cannot post the same thing in multiple forums. You must not open similar threads about the same or a similar topic. You cannot spam the board or send unsolicited messages to members via PM, email or any other means.

6. Do not post off-topic. You cannot derail a thread with off topic posts.

7. You cannot shout in posts. This includes posting in all CAPS, bold, lIkE tHiS, and extra large font. Posts should also be one color, although you may use an additional color for highlighting ideas you wish to address.

8. You may not alter quotes in a way that misrepresents what was originally said.

9. Multiple accounts are not allowed. If you are found to have more than one account all accounts will be permanently terminated.

10. You cannot have a user name, avatar, signature, or post images that are deliberately offensive. That includes the display of overly explicit or graphic images that may not be suitable for minors.

11. Signatures can not have more than three lines of text, with a font size no larger than "4", and no more than two font colors. Images in signatures cannot be any larger than 800 pixels wide x 200 pixels tall. Animated images are not allowed.

12. You are prohibited from taking any action to disturb the use of the services by others, distribute material that contains viruses, spyware or any other malicious code or harmful programs. This includes interfering with the working of the network, attempts to gain unauthorized access to a service or other computer systems that are part of the site or any other site, by use of the available services.

13. Discussion of moderation actions in public and/or private forums is not permitted. Moderation actions include warnings, suspensions and the editing or deletion of posts. If a member has a concern about a moderation action, he or she is invited to address it with the board staff via Private Message. This rule exists to protect the privacy of all posters with regards to disciplinary action. The moderator team will never publicly discuss the warnings/suspensions of any posters, and we ask that you return the favor, whether about yourself or another poster. Posting about moderation actions in the public forums constitutes a violation. You are free to discuss a moderation action via Private Message with the moderator involved, but you may not harass or abuse the moderators (as already specified in the forum rules). In practical terms, this means that once a moderator tells you his or her decision is final, no further PMs about that moderation action are permitted. If you have a concern about a moderation action, you are free to appeal to a Forum Administrator via Private Message. You may only discuss moderator activities or discussion of moderation with staff member if you chose to private message and are not under any circumstances allowed to use the PM function to forward or promote moderator discussion in regards to specific forum action, amongst other regular members. Administrators do reserve the right to read said PMs and may do so ; if that results in discovery of messaging between posters of such moderator discussion then it will lead to the same violation being received for discussing said moderator actions on the forum. If you receive a message to the effect of having been given moderator information, please report it to a member of staff. Engaging back in that discussion with the original violator will earn you just as stiff a sanction.

14. Do not ignore moderators or administrators. Do not repost something a moderator or administrator has deleted. You cannot have moderators or administrators on your ignore list.

15. Only post in English. Short passages in foreign languages may be acceptable if its use seems helpful for the ongoing discussion and when there is no indication of a potential violation of the forum rules. Always provide a translation into English in such cases. In case of doubt, the incident will be regarded as a violation, no matter of the actual meaning of the foreign language text.

16. The use of words/comments etc. written by other posters, without approval of the poster in your personal signature is not allowed nor are references, by name, to other posters allowed.

17. Please pay attention to announcements by Forum staff that will be found in the "Welcome! / News & Announcements" forum from time to time.

18. Use of "liar", "lies", "lying", etc. Accusing someone of being a "liar" or similar accusations towards other posters will generally be regarded as implying an insult and therewith as a violation of the forum rules. "I question the validity of your statement because...", "That's not the truth" or "you are wrong about that" are sufficient for any decent discussion if you want to disagree with somebody's assertions.

19. Thread opening restriction for new members. In order to control SPAM, new members must have moderator approval to start their own threads.

20. Thread titles must relate to the discussion within. Do not make misleading titles, or titles such as "Guess what..." or "You'll never believe this...". Members need to be able to identify the general gist of the thread via the title. Profanity in thread titles is not permitted.

21. Forum members are instructed to use forum tools and abilities for their intended purposes and no other. If members identify a forum glitch or weakness of any kind that allows you to see or do something you know you shouldn't, please report it. Being aware of any unintended access to the Forum and failing to take appropriate steps to notify staff of said access issues, will create a presumption of seeking to take advantage of the issue, will result in either account suspension, or banishment.

22. Any link to a site that contains graphic content, must contain a warning describing what a person might reasonably expect to view if they click on said link. No graphic pictures are to be posted on the Forum.

23. Threats or advocations of violence toward a public figure, or member of the Forum, will not be tolerated. Conversation about revolution or the like is not prohibited by this rule; directly calling for violence is, eg It's time to kill every <redacted> that voted for the bill, is not permitted.

24. Accounts with no posts will be deleted after 30 days. Inactive accounts with low post histories may be deleted after one year.

25. Private forums are something offered to members that decide to contribute directly to this site via donations. These donations help immensely in keeping this site up and running. Private forums are designed to allow the contributing member discuss whatever he/she wants to and to have the power to direct that discussion in whatever way he/she chose. They were not designed nor are they intended for simply talking trash about members that don't have access to the forum. While the targeted members cannot see the forum or the comments, it creates a negative atmosphere that really isn't necessary. If you want to totally rip apart ideas, ideologies, political parties, etc. that is fine. We simply ask that you don't use the private forums as a means to attack other members that aren't privy to such comments. It is difficult enough to have a political discussion forum because the discussion of politics is inherently heated as people are so passionate about their beliefs...the ones that take the time to come to such a site in the first place at least. The idea of private forums is so people of similar political persuasions can discuss whatever they want without fear of being attacked. Nonetheless, we hope that a certain level of maturity would foster itself within such an arena and not simply lend itself to a bashing forum.

Private Forums are governed by all of the above Forum rules. In addition:
  • Private forums that essentially become abandoned homes will be subject to deletion, donation or reorganization. Just like elsewhere in life, clubs sometimes lose their vitality and purpose for a myriad of reasons. If it becomes clear that a private forum has clearly lost its vitality and nobody is going to really use it anymore, owners are advised to consider whether to reuse the forum for something new and productive rather than let them linger or notify the Administration that the forum should be rearranged for other purposes, closed, merged with other compatible private forums, donated to others for new purposes, etc. Do not be concerned that your forum must be a membership and post count race with others to avoid falling under this policy; the question is whether your forum has actual vitality instead of being 'brain dead.'
  • Additionally, private forums may only be owned by subscribed members in the Platinum or Diamond categories.
  • Should the owner of a private forum be banned, quit USPOL or otherwise abandon the forum the PF will be transferred to another owner or closed.
  • Propriety of private forums. Administration staff will determine the desirability of a proposed private forum and enact any conditions upon it to ensure its purpose is productive.
  • Any and all instances of sharing accounts by allowing someone else to log in under their own account so they can see into private forums for which they are otherwise not permitted to access, will be deemed violation of the double account rule and all caught doing so will be permanently banned.
  • Relaying private forum posts and information to other posters who are not members of the particular private forum for any negative or destructive purpose (eg mean-spirited gossip, fueling interpersonal disputes, etc), is not permitted, and will constitute a violation of the Forum rules.
  • For purposes of monitoring USPOL Terms of Service Administrative staff (not Moderators) will have access to Private Forums.
  • All Private Forums must have at least one active Administrator as a member for purposes of handling issues which cannot be addressed through moderation permissions.
  • Discussion of moderation activities is prohibited on the open site and is likewise prohibited in Private Forums.

26. The administrators and moderators reserve the right to edit and/or delete a post,and/or close a thread, and/or delete a thread at any time if of the opinion that the post is too obscene, inappropriate, or the discussion has run its course.

27. 'Back seat moderating' is not allowed. If you take issue with another poster's contribution to the forum, you're welcome to report any posts you think are out of line, but you should not bring it up publicly within the forum.

28. Images in posts (whether embedded or hot linked) must be reasonable in size. 800x800 should be considered a good rule of thumb. Excessively large images make it difficult for users on mobile devices to load pages. If necessary please simply link to very large images using the URL tags. In addition, the following images are not permitted (including, but not limited to pages with images or videos containing):
  • Strategically covered nudity
  • Sheer or see-through clothing
  • Lewd or provocative poses
  • Close-ups of breasts, buttocks, or crotches

29. Any solicitation or communication involving sports betting / gambling / online casinos / bookies and or internet based card or slot machine systems or sites will lead to all said content being physically removed from the site and server, and will lead to any and or all parties involved being permanently removed and banned from the site to the farthest extent possible. This includes any links to any form of bookmaker, casino, any type of game or match or event where money transfers on the outcome or link of any sort to wire act violations and or anything in violation of either the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act, Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, or the Federal wire Act. This applies not only to the open forum but all and or any chat rooms, articles, private messages and or private forums. All content that violates this rule will be deleted, without notice.

CONSEQUENCES

Failure to comply with any of the forum rules may result in your posts being edited or deleted and/or your account being temporarily or permanently banned from the forums. U.S. Politics Online uses a warning system that generates an automated Private Message to members when they are in violation of Forum rules. The decision to issue a warning is left to the discretion of the moderator or administrator handling the violation. If a member does not agree with an action taken by a moderator, they can appeal to an administrator after seeking clarification from the moderator who issued the warning/infraction and appealing to them in the first instance. Members MAY NOT harass a moderator or administrator by sending excessive PMs when they are discussing an appeal.

Violations are assigned a point value. Points are valid for 30 days. When a members earns 10 points, their account will be automatically suspended: five (5) days for a first suspension; ten (10) days for a second suspension; and twenty (20) days for a third suspension. If a member incurs an additional 10 points after having served three periods of suspension, then they will be permanently banned from the Forum.

Point values are as follows:
Zero (0) points Warning
Two (2) points - Minor infraction / Non post infraction (minor) / Off topic posts / spamming
Four (4) points - Academic dishonesty / Baiting / Discussing moderator or administrator actions / Implying an insult / Minor insults / Moderate infraction / Non-post infraction (moderate) / Thread dumping
Six (6) points - Direct insult at another member / major infraction / Non-post infraction (major)
Ten (10) points - Act of criminality, or advocating thereof

The administrators and moderators also bear the right to issue warnings, temporarily suspend or ban posters for continued trolling or other serious misconduct (eg. professional spamming) even if the poster has not yet reached the maximum warning points or suspensions level. Other options if the above consequences do not seem adequate include placing the member in a moderation queue, which means all posts will have to be approved before they are posted to the board.

PRIVACY POLICY

All information obtained by the end user via the registration process is for internal purposes only and will not be sold to or shared with any third parties. However, if the end user participates in illegal activities and a court of proper jurisdiction orders U.S. Politics Online to release certain information about said user then we will act according to the law. Furthermore, no information will be released on threat of a lawsuit, attempted or actual intimidation, or due to any other reason except as notated in the first sentence of this paragraph. Nonetheless, keep in mind that the information we do have is very limited and generally only consists of the IP address a member uses.

SUBSCRIPTIONS

U.S. Politics Online offers several subscription plans to help cover the operational costs of the site. As a thank you for your donation, you will receive special added benefits meant to enhance your U.S. Politics Online experience. Plans vary in price, starting at only $0.05/day, and benefits vary with the price. Benefits include ability to go straight to new posts, to search the forum, larger avatar, private forums, invisible mode, photo gallery, email, web hosting, and no advertisement banners. Please, click here for more details.
See more
See less

Mueller Report Lies, Omissions, Deceptive Edits, etc.

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Mueller Report Lies, Omissions, Deceptive Edits, etc.

    I thought it would be good to start a thread that tracks the garbage that Team Mueller has put in it's report as it's revealed. I can start it off with the first two entries, though no doubt there will be many, many more.

    First, there was the deceptive editing and subsequent misrepresentation of John Dowd's phone transcript.

    Robert Mueller and his hitman Andrew Weissmann manipulated the transcript and lied about the call.

    This is more proof the deep state used any means possible including lying to get Trump.

    Rosie Memos discovered the Mueller-Weissmann edited the report to make it look more damaging.

    Via Rosie Memos: Once again #MuellerReport edited messages to make them appear more damaging, full transcript of this phone call reveals Dowds message was pretty typical for a lawyer and he clearly states hes not interested in any confidential info. What else did they manipulate?

    Conservative Treehouse later explained: Notice how Mueller leaves out (via edits) the context of the call, and the important qualifier: without you having to give up any confidential information. Clearly Dowd does not want to interfere in Flynns cooperation with the special counsel, which is opposite to the twisted claim presented by Weissmann and Muellers report.
    https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/201...-indict-trump/

    Next up, Ukrainian businessman Konstantin Kilimnik was misrepresented as a Russian intelligence asset when, in fact, he was working with the State dept.

    In a key finding of the Mueller report, Ukrainian businessman Konstantin Kilimnik, who worked for Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort, is tied to Russian intelligence.

    But hundreds of pages of government documents which Mueller possessed since 2018 describe Kilimnik as a sensitive intelligence source for the U.S. State Department who informed on Ukrainian and Russian matters.

    Why special counsel Robert Muellers team omitted that part of the Kilimnik narrative from their report and related court filings is not known. But the revelation of it comes as the accuracy of Muellers Russia conclusions face increased scrutiny.

    The incomplete portrayal of Kilimnik is so important to Muellers overall narrative that it is raised in the opening of his report. The FBI assesses Kilimnik to have ties to Russian intelligence, Muellers team wrote on page 6, putting a sinister light on every contact Kilimnik had with Manafort, the former Trump campaign chairman.

    What it doesnt state is that Kilimnik was a sensitive intelligence source for State going back to at least 2013 while he was still working for Manafort, according to FBI and State Department memos I reviewed.

    ...

    The FBI knew all of this, well before the Mueller investigation concluded.

    Alan Purcell, the chief political officer at the Kiev embassy from 2014 to 2017, told FBI agents that State officials, including senior embassy officials Alexander Kasanof and Eric Schultz, deemed Kilimnik to be such a valuable asset that they kept his name out of cables for fear he would be compromised by leaks to WikiLeaks.

    ...

    Three sources with direct knowledge of the inner workings of Muellers office confirmed to me that the special prosecutors team had all of the FBI interviews with State officials, as well as Kilimniks intelligence reports to the U.S. embassy, well before they portrayed him as a Russian sympathizer tied to Moscow intelligence or charged Kilimnik with participating with Manafort in a scheme to obstruct the Russia investigation.
    https://thehill.com/opinion/white-ho...ate-department

  • #2
    In other words, here we will affirm that this fellow muler wasted a LOT of OUR time and money to create a document that is almost entirely fiction, but SOUNDS GOOD.

    Is "pretty close."

    So we now know what it was that took him so long to create.

    A fraud that could appear as honest, legitimate detective work..... and ... kind of stand up to scrutiny

    Kind of...

    Maybe that's why he said he is completely finished ???

    It was all politics and all crap....

    ?


    • #3
      Always been a political coup. Another sign that our republic is dead.

      ?


      • #4
        This is all so sickening to be happening in America. The left and Trump haters have no ethics, morals, or sense of obligation to the constitution. They purposefully misrepresent their responsibilities and obligations to mislead the public into believing what is law, is not, and what is not law, is.

        Mueller is a piece of garbage. He had no business slandering Trump or any of the people in his investigation. Bring charges or don't. Recommend charges or don't. Without charges everything in his report is petty slander. Yep, he's a shameful piece of garbage!

        What's even sadder is that so many Americans have such little self confidence in their own judgement that they allow authorities to manipulate their own values. These manipulated bunch would never support in real life, (when it touches them), what they believe they favor in political policy. Guaranteed most of these people defend and enjoy their capitalist life on a day to day basis, do not share their personal earnings with strangers, do not want to share their grades with college peers, lock their doors, would not take in strangers, enjoy lower taxes, etc.

        Just fed up!
        Last edited by msc; 06-07-2019, 03:23 AM.

        ?


        • #5
          Originally posted by msc View Post
          This is all so sickening to be happening in America. The left and Trump haters have no ethics, morals, or sense of obligation to the constitution. They purposefully misrepresent their responsibilities and obligations to mislead the public into believing what is law, is not, and what is not law, is.

          Mueller is a piece of garbage. He had no business slandering Trump or any of the people in his investigation. Bring charges or don't. Recommend charges or don't. Without charges everything in his report is petty slander. Yep, he's a shameful piece of garbage!

          What's even sadder is that so many Americans have such little self confidence in their own judgement that they allow authorities to manipulate their own values. These manipulated bunch would never support in real life, (when it touches them), what they believe they favor in political policy. Guaranteed most of these people defend and enjoy their capitalist life on a day to day basis, do not share their personal earnings with strangers, do not want to share their grades with college peers, lock their doors, would not take in strangers, enjoy lower taxes, etc.

          Just fed up
          !
          100% agree !

          ?


          • #6
            4 new omissions, misstatements, and lies;

            https://www.theepochtimes.com/5-disc...n_2951924.html

            ?


            • #7
              Originally posted by CYDdharta View Post
              4 new omissions, misstatements, and lies;

              https://www.theepochtimes.com/5-disc...n_2951924.html
              From your provided link

              ================================================== =====

              The Mueller report appears to have been carefully worded by the lawyers working under former special counsel Robert Mueller, and perhaps Mueller himself, in a manner designed to inflict political damage on President Donald Trump.

              [ No surprise ]

              ...sections of the report were also selectively edited to provide damaging portrayals.

              Examples include the representation of the transcript of a phone call between the presidents attorney, John Dowd, and the attorney for former national security adviser Michael Flynn, a letter from the attorney of an individual referenced in the Mueller report, and a sequence of dates concerning the meeting between Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos and Australian diplomat Alexander Downer.

              Lastly, there are troubling and disturbing details surrounding a heavily used witness in the Mueller report, George Nader.


              What makes these examples particularly notable is that access to the underlying material used in the Mueller report is extremely limited.

              In each of the instances where information is publicly availabledocuments released in the ongoing Flynn case, a rebuttal letter from lawyers for the individual mentioned in the Mueller report, and details surrounding the Papadopoulos casethey highlight inconsistencies, thereby raising concerns that Muellers report may be hiding many more such problems.

              Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) highlighted the Dowd transcript in a May 31 tweet, saying, "This is why we need all backup and source documentation for the #muellerdossier released publicly. It's all a fraud."

              [ Just like the Jussie Smollet event, this entire thing was an obvious fraud from the outset ]

              Notably, Dowd was never interviewed by the special counsel, who cited attorney-client privilege issues as the reason in a footnote within the report. Dowds voicemail was edited in the presentation within the Mueller report to appear as follows:



              [I][I]I understand your situation, but let me see if I cant state it in starker terms. t wouldnt surprise me if youve gone on to make a deal with the government. f theres information that implicates the President, then weve got a national security issue, so, you know, . . . we need some kind of heads up. Um, just for the sake of protecting all our interests if we can . [R]emember what we ve always said about the President and his feelings toward Flynn and, that still remains


              This somewhat menacing version leaves out important details and distorts the actual context of Dowds voicemail. Dowds full message was actually far more friendly and touched on two distinctly separate matters. Particularly noteworthy is the fact that Dowd specifically cautioned Flynns attorney that he wasnt requesting any confidential information:

              Hey, Rob, uhm, this is John again. Uh, maybe, I-I-Im-Im sympathetic; I understand your situation, but let me see if I cant state it in starker terms. If you have and it wouldnt surprise me if youve gone on to make a deal with, and, uh, work with the government, uh I understand that you cant join the joint defense; so thats one thing. If, on the other hand, we have, theres information that. .. implicates the President, then weve got a national security issue, or maybe a national security issue, I dont know some issue, we got to-we got to deal with, not only for the President, but for the country. So uh you know, then-then, you know, we need some kind of heads up. Um, just for the sake of protecting all our interests, if we can, without you having to give up any confidential information. So, uhm, and if its the former, then, you know, remember what weve always said about the President and his feelings toward Flynn and, that still remains, but-Well, in any event, uhm, let me know, and, uh, I appreciate your listening and taking the time. Thanks, Pal.



              Dowd himself also responded to a fellow attorney on Twitter with a short statement on the discrepancy in the report, noting It is unfair and despicable. It was a friendly privileged call between counsel with NO conflict. I think Flynn got screwed.

              .........

              ================================================== =====

              This whole thing was dirty from the beginning.

              As I mentioned above; "Just like the Jussie Smollet event, this entire thing was an obvious fraud from the outset"

              It has become a regular practice of democrats to make something up to charge someone with, then run with it.

              Jussie Smollet did it. Blasey Ford did it, many others have done it.

              These people have shown that they are liars and frauds at every turn and should not be believed !

              Now Nancy is yammering like a loon about seeing the president in prison !


              https://www.washingtonpost.com/power...=.1fded0bd43a7

              For what ?

              She doesn't like him.

              ?


              • #8
                Much disinformation has been flooding the media about Mueller's reason for not coming to a conclusion on obstruction. Many have disingenuously (including Mueller himself) suggested or stated flat out that the only reason Trump wasn't indicted was because of the OLC memo. The John Dowd incident mentioned herein proves that to be false. Leaving aside the dishonest and unethical edits to his messages for a moment, if his actions constituted obstruction, he would have been a party to the action, and nothing prevented Mueller from indicting Dowd. Why wouldn't they? Because they knew damn well that even the edited message simply did not meet the legal elements of obstruction.

                ?


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Captain Trips View Post

                  From your provided link

                  ================================================== =====

                  The Mueller report appears to have been carefully worded by the lawyers working under former special counsel Robert Mueller, and perhaps Mueller himself, in a manner designed to inflict political damage on President Donald Trump.

                  [ No surprise ]

                  ...sections of the report were also selectively edited to provide damaging portrayals.

                  Examples include the representation of the transcript of a phone call between the presidents attorney, John Dowd, and the attorney for former national security adviser Michael Flynn, a letter from the attorney of an individual referenced in the Mueller report, and a sequence of dates concerning the meeting between Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos and Australian diplomat Alexander Downer.

                  Lastly, there are troubling and disturbing details surrounding a heavily used witness in the Mueller report, George Nader.


                  What makes these examples particularly notable is that access to the underlying material used in the Mueller report is extremely limited.

                  In each of the instances where information is publicly availabledocuments released in the ongoing Flynn case, a rebuttal letter from lawyers for the individual mentioned in the Mueller report, and details surrounding the Papadopoulos casethey highlight inconsistencies, thereby raising concerns that Muellers report may be hiding many more such problems.

                  Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) highlighted the Dowd transcript in a May 31 tweet, saying, "This is why we need all backup and source documentation for the #muellerdossier released publicly. It's all a fraud."

                  [ Just like the Jussie Smollet event, this entire thing was an obvious fraud from the outset ]

                  Notably, Dowd was never interviewed by the special counsel, who cited attorney-client privilege issues as the reason in a footnote within the report. Dowds voicemail was edited in the presentation within the Mueller report to appear as follows:



                  [I][I]I understand your situation, but let me see if I cant state it in starker terms. t wouldnt surprise me if youve gone on to make a deal with the government. f theres information that implicates the President, then weve got a national security issue, so, you know, . . . we need some kind of heads up. Um, just for the sake of protecting all our interests if we can . [R]emember what we ve always said about the President and his feelings toward Flynn and, that still remains


                  This somewhat menacing version leaves out important details and distorts the actual context of Dowds voicemail. Dowds full message was actually far more friendly and touched on two distinctly separate matters. Particularly noteworthy is the fact that Dowd specifically cautioned Flynns attorney that he wasnt requesting any confidential information:

                  Hey, Rob, uhm, this is John again. Uh, maybe, I-I-Im-Im sympathetic; I understand your situation, but let me see if I cant state it in starker terms. If you have and it wouldnt surprise me if youve gone on to make a deal with, and, uh, work with the government, uh I understand that you cant join the joint defense; so thats one thing. If, on the other hand, we have, theres information that. .. implicates the President, then weve got a national security issue, or maybe a national security issue, I dont know some issue, we got to-we got to deal with, not only for the President, but for the country. So uh you know, then-then, you know, we need some kind of heads up. Um, just for the sake of protecting all our interests, if we can, without you having to give up any confidential information. So, uhm, and if its the former, then, you know, remember what weve always said about the President and his feelings toward Flynn and, that still remains, but-Well, in any event, uhm, let me know, and, uh, I appreciate your listening and taking the time. Thanks, Pal.



                  Dowd himself also responded to a fellow attorney on Twitter with a short statement on the discrepancy in the report, noting It is unfair and despicable. It was a friendly privileged call between counsel with NO conflict. I think Flynn got screwed.

                  .........

                  ================================================== =====

                  This whole thing was dirty from the beginning.

                  As I mentioned above; "Just like the Jussie Smollet event, this entire thing was an obvious fraud from the outset"

                  It has become a regular practice of democrats to make something up to charge someone with, then run with it.

                  Jussie Smollet did it. Blasey Ford did it, many others have done it.

                  These people have shown that they are liars and frauds at every turn and should not be believed !

                  Now Nancy is yammering like a loon about seeing the president in prison !


                  https://www.washingtonpost.com/power...=.1fded0bd43a7

                  For what ?

                  She doesn't like him.
                  I'd be more than happy for Nancy to see the president in prison, that's if they were both visiting Hillary at the same time.

                  ?


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Blue Doggy View Post
                    Always been a political coup. Another sign that our republic is dead.
                    Well, perhaps not dead, but under threat, certainly. Under threat from within.

                    ?


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Marcus1124 View Post
                      Much disinformation has been flooding the media about Mueller's reason for not coming to a conclusion on obstruction. Many have disingenuously (including Mueller himself) suggested or stated flat out that the only reason Trump wasn't indicted was because of the OLC memo. The John Dowd incident mentioned herein proves that to be false. Leaving aside the dishonest and unethical edits to his messages for a moment, if his actions constituted obstruction, he would have been a party to the action, and nothing prevented Mueller from indicting Dowd. Why wouldn't they? Because they knew damn well that even the edited message simply did not meet the legal elements of obstruction.
                      There have been quite a number of reports from investigative journalists that have raised any number of questions about the 'factual predicate' justifying the Russian Collusion hoax investigation, and it's not looking good for any of those involved; Comey, McCabe, Strzok, Page, the Ohr's, Brennan, Steele, et. al.

                      In essence, the FBI committed FISA fraud on the court, knowing at the time their FISA warrant was based on what appears to have been little more than Russian intel sourced disinformation. If not at the initial FISA warrant, certainly on its 2, 3, and 4 times extensions.

                      My read of Barr is that he doesn't care about his reputation within the DC swamp (good), and is far more focused on the law and the enforcement there of (excellent). Durham is his choice to investigate the onset of the Russian Collusion investigation, and he seems to be an excellent choice, given his history of prosecuting government and FBI corruption, of which there is much in the Russian Collusion investigation case.

                      As I've posted a number of times, Barr testified before congress that spying did occur, that's beyond argument at this point, but the legalities hinged around the 'factual predicate' of how the initial counter espionage investigation was justified. If that factual predicate justified the initiation of the counter espionage investigation; if there was no prosecutorial malfeasance in the investigation; if there were no violation of civil rights or constitutional rights during the investigation and Mueller's efforts; if all that is true, then no harm no foul.

                      With what has been uncovered by the investigative journalists, nearly all being completely ignored by the lamestream, fake news, DNC Pravda political propaganda media, doesn't look good for any of the actors involved.

                      ?


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by eohrnberger View Post

                        Well, perhaps not dead, but under threat, certainly. Under threat from within.
                        If only a few get represented as evidenced by Princeton it is dead.

                        ?


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Blue Doggy View Post

                          If only a few get represented as evidenced by Princeton it is dead.
                          Princeton? I'm sorry, but I don't get the reference. Princeton?

                          ?


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by eohrnberger View Post

                            Princeton? I'm sorry, but I don't get the reference. Princeton?
                            Sorry. I was referencing their study by the same name.

                            ?


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Blue Doggy View Post

                              Sorry. I was referencing their study by the same name.
                              Ahh. I see.

                              A new study from Princeton spells bad news for American democracynamely, that it no longer exists.

                              Asking [w]ho really rules? researchers Martin Gilens and Benjamin I. Page arguesthat over the past few decades Americas political system has slowly transformed from a democracy into an oligarchy, where wealthy elites wield most power.

                              Using data drawn from over 1,800 different policy initiatives from 1981 to 2002, the two conclude that rich, well-connected individuals on the political scene now steer the direction of the country, regardless of or even against the will of the majority of voters.

                              TPM Interview: Scholar Behind Viral Oligarchy Study Tells You What It Means

                              The central point that emerges from our research is that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, they write, while mass-based interest groups and average citizens have little or no independent influence.
                              https://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewi...nger-democracy
                              Even though the study's authors conclude this, the election of Trump, the anti-political elite candidate if ever there was one, would seem to indicate that the authors might be just a little bit premature in their conclusion.

                              Should note that the US isn't a Democracy, but rather a Republic, so how knowledgeable are these authors of this study?

                              True, likely that the trend won't be reversed in a single 4 or 8 year term (raising the question as to who's going to be the next president), just the fact that it did happen, perhaps cause for being cautiously optimistic?

                              ?

                              Working...
                              X