More FAKE News … AP Makes Correction to Trump-Russia Stories (FOUR, Not 17 U.S. Intelligence Agencies)
EVEN WITH COMMON CORE MATH: 17 – 4= 13
On the Friday of a July 4th holiday day week with many not paying attention, the AP took the opportunity to report that they have been reporting FAKE NEWS for quite some time. Earlier in the week, the NY Times did the same retraction. It would appear that they, the AP, and numerous other media outlets and Democrat politicians have been using the fictitious number of 17 U.S. intelligence agencies have agreed that Russia tried to influence the 2016 election to benefit Donald Trump. It turns out to be a fabricated number. Because 17 sounds much more impressive than 4. In essence, the AP, and in turn Democrats were trying to make it sound like 100% of the US intelligence agencies have agreed that Russia tried to influence the 2016 election to benefit Donald Trump. Actually, it was only 23.5%. Hmm, that’s much difference, isn’t it?
This news was put out by the media as weaponized information against Donald Trump. The MSM colluded with the Democrat party. Who leaked this information to the media who purposely put forth this incorrect information so that the MSM would run with it and it would become talking points for Democrats.
In stories published April 6, June 2, June 26 and June 29, The Associated Press reported that all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies have agreed that Russia tried to influence the 2016 election to benefit Donald Trump. That assessment was based on information collected by three agencies – the FBI, CIA and National Security Agency – and published by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, which represents all U.S. intelligence agencies. Not all 17 intelligence agencies were involved in reaching the assessment.
How much more fake news do we have to have forced upon us for the American people to understand that the MSM really can no longer be trusted? The media has an agenda and they are colluding with the Democrat party. Maybe that is the investigation that needs to be looked into?
Senate Judiciary Committee Opens Probe into Former Attorney General Loretta Lynch’s Efforts to Shape the FBI’s Investigation With 2016 Hillary Clinton’s Presidential Campaign
IF THERE EVER WAS COLLUSION AND OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE, LOOK NO FURTHER THAN OBAMA’S FORMER AG, LORETTA LYNCH.
During the Senate Judiciary Committee with former FBI director James Comey we learned there was actual collusion and obstruction of justice; however, it has nothing to do with the Trump administration, it was with the Obama one. On Friday, the Senate Judiciary Committee leaders said they are seeking information about former attorney general Loretta Lynch’s alleged efforts to stifle the FBI’s investigation of Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server while Clinton was secretary of State. Yeah, that little investigation that Lynch wanted FBI Director Comey to call a matter. Comey testified, “When I said, we have opened a matter, they all reported the FBI has an investigation open. And so that concerned me because that language tracked the way the campaign was talking about FBI’s work and that’s concerning.” However, in the end Comey had no problem doing what she said. Hmm, no notes taken and no obstruction of justice decided by Comey. Imagine that?
Following this amazing admission under oath by the former FBI director, even Democrat Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) said that there should be an investigation into former Obama administration Attorney General Loretta Lynch’s actions
The Senate Judiciary Committee has opened a probe into former Attorney General Loretta Lynch’s efforts to shape the FBI’s investigation into 2016 Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton, the committee’s chairman announced Friday.
In a letter to Ms. Lynch, the committee asks her to detail the depths of her involvement in the FBI’s investigation, including whether she ever assured Clinton confidantes that the probe wouldn’t “push too deeply into the matter.”
Fired FBI Director James B. Comey has said publicly that Ms. Lynch tried to shape the way he talked about the investigation into Mrs. Clinton’s emails, and he also hinted at other behavior “which I cannot talk about yet” that made him worried about Ms. Lynch’s ability to make impartial decisions.
Mr. Comey said that was one reason why he took it upon himself to buck Justice Department tradition and reveal his findings about Mrs. Clinton last year.
Profiling Project, Independent Group Releases Report on Seth Rich Murder Investigation … Murder was More Likely Committed by a Hired Killer.
WAS IT A BOTCHED ROBBERY OR A HIRED KILLER?
The death of DNC worker Seth Rich continues to be an unsolved crime. Rich was murdered in the Bloomingdale neighborhood of D.C. 11 months ago on Sunday July 10, 2016, at approximately 4:19 AM. The DC police are calling a random robbery gone terribly wrong. However, a group of George Washington University graduate students calling themselves the Profiling Project have released a report on their own investigation into Seth Rich’s murder and have come up with quite a different conclusion. According to Profiling Project. They published their findings on Tuesday in an 83-page report that was also reported by Newsweek, hardly a right-wing publication. Te report says, the “death was more likely committed by a hired killer or serial murderer,” and that the killer is likely still at large. So what to make of this? Newsweek and other media outlets previously have gone out of their way to debunk the Wikileaks-Rich connection. Now they are publishing a story like this?
Read the full Project Profile report HERE.
DNC worker Seth Rich was murdered in the Bloomingdale neighborhood of D.C. 11 months ago and his killer is still on the loose.
Now, a group of George Washington University graduate students calling themselves the Profiling Project are releasing a report on their own investigation into Rich’s murder.
D.C. Police tell the 7 ON YOUR SIDE I-Team that Seth Rich’s murder is still being investigated as a botched robbery.
The Profiling Project doesn’t buy it. A report just issued by the Profiling Project says the murder was more likely committed by a hired killer.
Kevin Doherty, the Chief Investigator of Profiling Project says, “It’s a possibility. A proficient killer is what we think, the fact that the killer has gotten away with it for this period of time and that it appears to be a very sanitized crime scene certainly shows some level of proficiency in killing.”
With all that entails with the back story of Seth Rich, one would think that this was one investigation that law enforcement, Democrats and the MSM would want to find out the truth as to what happened. Instead, it is just the opposite. Maybe if it was a conspiracy between the Russians and Trump they would put an independence counsel on the case.
How is Robert Mueller Allowed to Be Independent Special Counsel When Special Counsel Statute Specifically Prohibits It Because of Conflict of Interest (VIDEO)
ISN’T THE INDEPENDENT COUNSEL, SUPPOSED TO BE INDEPENDENT?
What would the LEFT be saying today if the individual picked to be the Independent counsel investigating the Russian hacking and any so-called involvement of Donald Trump and obstruction of justice was a friend and mentor of Trump? This is a legitimate question. According to the special counsel statute, it specifically prohibits individuals from serving if he/she has “a personal relationship with any person substantially involved in the investigation or prosecution.” The language is mandatory as it states “shall” disqualify himself. It does not say, might, kinda or sort of. Shall means shall. Gregg Jarrett of Fox News is 100% correct in that Robert Mueller has no business being the independent counsel. Mueller has a complete conflict of interest. The two men and former colleagues have long been friends, allies and partners. One has to wonder how Mueller was selected in the first place. Unless the fix is in.
28 CFR Section 45.2 provides in part:
Disqualification arising from personal or political relationship.
(a) Unless authorized under paragraph (b) of this section, no employee shall participate in a criminal investigation or prosecution if he has a personal or political relationship with:
(1) Any person or organization substantially involved in the conduct that is the subject of the investigation or prosecution; or
(2) Any person or organization which he knows has a specific and substantial interest that would be directly affected by the outcome of the investigation or prosecution …
(c) For the purposes of this section:
(2) Personal relationship means a close and substantial connection of the type normally viewed as likely to induce partiality. … Whether relationships (including friendships) of an employee to other persons (outside his or her family) or organizations are “personal” must be judged on an individual basis with due regard given to the subjective opinion of the employee.
It does not matter whether Robert Mueller is an honorable man or a Boy Scout. Provisions like this are put in to maintain that there is no appearance of impropriety. It takes the subjectivity out of such an investigation. Honestly, who thinks some one can be objective to the man that fired his friend? If Robert Mueller was truly a man of honor as so many claim, he would understand and admit he is woefully conflicted and recuse himself. The canons of ethics and the law are greater than any one person and the blood lust to destroy them. Or are they?
The Washington Post is reporting that Robert Mueller is now investigating President Trump for obstruction of justice, examining not only the president’s alleged statement to James Comey in their February meeting, but also the firing of the FBI Director.
If true, this development makes the argument even more compelling that Mueller cannot serve as special counsel. He has an egregious conflict of interest.
The special counsel statute specifically prohibits Mueller from serving if he has “a personal relationship with any person substantially involved in the investigation or prosecution.” The language is mandatory. He “shall” disqualify himself. Comey is substantially involved in the case. Indeed, he is the central witness.
The two men and former colleagues have long been friends, allies and partners. Agents have quipped that they were joined at the hip while at the Department of Justice and the FBI. They have a mentor-protégé relationship. The likelihood of prejudice and favoritism is glaring and severe.
So, it is incomprehensible that the man who is a close friend of the star witness against the president… will now determine whether the president committed a prosecutable crime in his dealings with Mueller’s good friend. Mueller cannot possibly be fair in judging the credibility of his friend versus the man who fired him.
Is the special counsel now motivated to retaliate against the president for ending Comey’s career at the FBI? Will he be tempted to conjure criminality where none actually exist?
Even worse, are Mueller and Comey now “colluding” by acting as co-special prosecutors to bring down the president? By meeting in advance of the Senate Intelligence Committee hearing, did they plan Comey’s testimony to depict Trump in the most incriminating light? These are legitimate questions that invite serious concerns.
UPDATE I: USA Today – Robert Mueller should recuse himself from Russia investigation: William G. Otis is an adjunct professor at Georgetown University Law Center, a former federal prosecutor, and former special counsel for President George H.W. Bush.
Former FBI director is too close to his successor, James Comey, to be impartial.
Robert Mueller is a man of integrity with a long record of public service. In the abstract, he would be the right selection as special counsel in the Russia investigation. Under the specific circumstances of this case, however, with his longtime friend James Comey at the center of the inquiry, Mueller’s the wrong choice. The public cannot be as sure as it needs to be of his objectivity.
This is true for reasons similar to those that prompted Attorney General Jeff Sessions to recuse himself from the same investigation. Sessions testified Tuesday that he felt he had no proper choice because he had a potential political conflict of interest, having been a campaign adviser to President Trump. Mueller should likewise step away because he has a potential personal conflict of interest, having been a longtime friend of a crucial witness, Comey, and Comey’s key ally at the most important moment of his career.
Mueller and fired FBI Director James Comey are best buds. Family vacations, picnics, hours spent at the office, and a few cocktails after work. As an impartial arbiter Mueller will be tasked to determine whom he believes, but Muelller is predisposed to believe his friend Comey. Wouldn’t you? The elements of obstruction of justice can be highly interpretive, so expect some legal exposure for our president.
Comey stated that he “leaked” the Trump meeting memo to The New York Times to stimulate the appointment of a special counsel. That admission is enlightening. As the Director of the FBI, Mr. Comey had the authority, stature and responsibility to deal with a violation of law. What he appeared to lack is courage or conviction.
The fact that Comey leaked the memo places him in some legal jeopardy. He could be charged with two federal violations. Should we expect to place Mueller into the position to investigate his dear friend? Even if Mueller believes himself capable of being impartial, our hearts will usually override our minds.
Why Mueller should step down as special counsel or recuse himself from any aspect of the investigation involving Comey:
SESSIONS EXPOSES THE ABSURDITY OF SENATE RUSSIAN PROBE …
Charles Krauthammer is hardly pro-Trump, yet even he stated that Attorney General Jeff Session’s testimony yesterday exposed the absurdity of the Russian probe. Just curious, where was the discussion on the Russian interference? Krauthammer stated this is a case of all smoke and no fire. Krauthammer went on to say that it was becoming Un-American to try and destroy the Trump presidency just because you do not like him and bases on no evidence and no crimes.