Russia

FBI “EDITED AND CHANGED” WITNESS REPORTS IN BOTH CLINTON AND RUSSIA INVESTIGATIONS

Posted on Updated on

Top Republican raises possibility that FBI mislead DOJ watchdog

 

  • “There is growing evidence that 302s were edited and changed,”Freedom Caucus Chair Rep. Mark Meadows told Inspector General Michael Horowitz. “Those 302s, it is suggested that they were changed to either prosecute or not prosecute individuals. And that is very troubling.”
  • Horowitz said he has additional information suggesting that the witness reports were changed after-the-fact in both the Clinton and Russia probes
  •  “302s” are reports on witness interviews compiled by federal investigators

 

( Fox News ) The FBI may have “edited and changed” key witness reports in the Hillary Clinton and Russia investigations, a top House Republican charged in a hearing into FBI and Justice Department misconduct Tuesday.

Freedom Caucus Chair Rep. Mark Meadows, R-N.C, also raised the possibility that the FBI misled the DOJ watchdog in an attempt to hide the identities of FBI employees who were caught sending anti-Trump messages.

The House Judiciary and Oversight committees were questioning Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz over his bombshell report into FBI and DOJ misconduct during the Hillary Clinton email probe.

“The other thing that I would ask you to look into, there is growing evidence that 302s were edited and changed,” Meadows told Horowitz. “Those 302s, it is suggested that they were changed to either prosecute or not prosecute individuals. And that is very troubling.”

OTHER HEARING DRAMA: DEM REP WARNS OF GOP PLOT TO OUST DEPUTY AG ROSENSTEIN ‘ON FRIDAY’

So-called “302s” are reports on witness interviews compiled by federal investigators. Horowitz said later he has additional information suggesting that the witness reports were changed after-the-fact in both the Clinton and Russia probes — a particularly alarming possibility given the IG report’s findings of bias in those investigations.

 

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/06/20/fbi-may-have-modified-witness-reports-misled-doj-watchdog-with-false-information-gop-rep-says.html

MUST READ: Mueller’s Bumbling and Hysterical Special Counsel Team Is Getting Pummeled in Court – Media Is Ignoring All of This

Posted on

 

  • Concord Management’s lawyers on 10 Russians linked by Mueller to them: “They’re alleged to be associated with something called an “organization,” which is a made up thing by the special counsel. They just made it up, and they called it an “organization”. We’re not even alleged to be part of the organization. We’re alleged to have funded it. But those people don’t work for us. It’s not alleged they they work for us.”
  • ” The Special Counsel seeks to equate this make-believe electioneering case to others involving international terrorism and major drug trafficking, and relies only on irrelevant dicta from inappropriate, primarily out-of-circuit cases.  In short, fake law, which is much more dangerous than fake news.

 

The Gateway Pundit by Joe Hoft

 Concord Management’s lawyers revealed that Mueller’s team ignored over 70 discovery requests they had made for information before the case.  In response Mueller’s team offered to give Concord Management’s lawyers a massive amount of social media data from those dangerous trolls (jk) who sought to influence the US election and the majority of it was in RUSSIAN.  Mueller’s lawyers then admitted they don’t even have English translations for the Russian social media posts.

So Mueller’s lawyers don’t have English translations to the Russian social media posts but we’re supposed to believe that Americans were influenced by these posts?
Then among other things previously reported, Mueller’s corrupt attorney Jeannie Rhee went on to align the 10 Russians identified by the Mueller team as members of an ‘organization’.  The Russian company’s attorney responded to the judge who apparently understood that these Russians were all members of Concord Management.  He said:

No that’s not correct. The individual defendants? No. It’s not even alleged who they are. They’re alleged to be associated with something called an “organization,” which is a made up thing by the special counsel. They just made it up, and they called it an “organization”. We’re not even alleged to be part of the organization. We’re alleged to have funded it. But those people don’t work for us. It’s not alleged they they work for us.

Now this weekend the Concord Management team filed a motion against the Mueller team’s protective order request to conceal all data related to their case.  The Concord team states in their motion filed June 14th (emphasis added) –

Having produced not one iota of discovery in this criminal case the unlawfully appointed Special Counsel requests a special and unprecedented blanket protective order covering tens of millions of pages of unclassified discovery.  Having made this special request based on a secret submission to the Court and a hysterical dithyramb about the future of the American elections, one would think that the Special Counsel would cite to case holdings that support this remarkable request.  But no, instead, the Special Counsel seeks to equate this make-believe electioneering case to others involving international terrorism and major drug trafficking, and relies only on irrelevant dicta from inappropriate, primarily out-of-circuit cases.  In short, fake law, which is much more dangerous than fake news.

 

Read more: https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2018/06/must-read-muellers-bumbling-and-hysterical-special-counsel-team-is-getting-pummeled-in-court-media-is-ignoring-all-of-this/

 

“FAKE LAW”: INDICTED RUSSIAN COMPANY CALLS MUELLER a “fake law, which is much more dangerous than fake news”

Posted on

  •  A lawyer for indicted Russian company calls Mueller “unlawfully appointed” and accuses him of chasing a “make-believe electioneering case.” 
  • “In short, fake law, which is much more dangerous than fake news,”
  • Mueller’s plan would include barring any of the defendants from reviewing the evidence found until they appear before a U.S. court

 

( CNBC ) A Russian company indicted for allegedly funding attempts to meddle in the 2016 presidential election tore into special counsel Robert Mueller Thursday, calling him “unlawfully appointed” and accusing him of chasing a “make-believe electioneering case.”

The searing court document was filed in response to Mueller’s request that a judge grant certain protections to the mountain of evidence in that case.

A lawyer for Concord Management and Consulting urged the judge to deny Mueller’s request and submitted a different proposal to be considered.

Concord is one of three Russian entities and 13 Russian people accused by the special counsel of breaking the law in order to interfere with U.S. elections.

That lawyer argued that Mueller’s proposal was “unprecedented” in its breadth and was based on irrelevant legal precedent.

“In short, fake law, which is much more dangerous than fake news,” Concord’s lawyer said.

Mueller’s plan would include barring any of the defendants from reviewing the evidence found until they appear before a U.S. court.

In that request, Mueller also warned that “uncharged individuals and entities” are still engaging in election interference operations.

Read more: https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/14/russian-company-accused-of-election-interference-vents-rage-at-mueller.html?__source=twitter%7Cmain

Mueller’s Russia probe cost $4.5M from October to March, DOJ says

Posted on

In this June 21, 2017, file photo, special counsel Robert Mueller departs after a meeting on Capitol Hill in Washington. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite, File)

 

  • Staff salaries and benefits for Mr. Mueller and his team was greatest expense, costing $2.7 million, according to the report. The next largest expense was rent and communication systems at $886,000.

 

By Jeff Mordock – The Washington Times – Thursday, May 31, 2018

Special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation cost taxpayers $4.5 million between October 2017 and March 2018, the Justice Department said Thursday.

The cost was disclosed through the special counsel’s statement of expenditures. Mr. Mueller is required to publicly disclose his expenses at regular intervals per department policy.

Staff salaries and benefits for Mr. Mueller and his team was greatest expense, costing $2.7 million, according to the report. The next largest expense was rent and communication systems at $886,000.

Other costs included roughly $532,000 spent on travel; $264,000 on contractual services, including IT and finance; $29,000 for supplies and $54,000 to purchase equipment.

 

 

Read more: Mueller’s Russia probe cost $4.5M from October to March, DOJ says

MUELLER FALLS APART! NO SURVEILLANCE EVIDENCE OF MANAFORT COMMUNICATING WITH RUSSIANS – SAYS MANAFORT’S LAWYER

Posted on

Paul Manafort, President Donald Trump's former campaign chairman, arrives at Federal District Court for a hearing, Wednesday, May 23, 2018, in Washington. ( AP Photo/Jose Luis Magana)

 

  • Paul Manafort’s lawyer, Kevin Downing ,  specifically asked the Mueller team for any such surveillance evidence during mandatory evidence discovery.
  • Mr. Mueller’s prosecutors answered that they had none.
  • Prosecutors risk having charges dismissed if they fail to comply with discovery rules.
  • “The special counsel has not produced any materials to the defense — no tapes, notes, transcripts or any other material evidencing surveillance or intercepts of communications between Mr. Manafort and Russian intelligence officials, Russian government officials [or any other foreign officials],” Mr. Downing’s filing said. “The Office of Special Counsel has advised that there are no materials responsive to the request.”

 

By Rowan Scarborough – The Washington Times – Sunday, May 27, 2018

No narrative is more at the heart of the Democrats’ and media’s TrumpRussia collusion charges than reports that Paul Manafort regularly communicated with Moscow during the 2016 campaign.

Now, that narrative has all but collapsed, according to an examination of the year-old official public record.

The allegations:

Christopher Steele’s Democratic Party-financed dossier said Mr. Manafort worked with Russia to coordinate the hacking of Democratic Party computers.

In addition, a number of media reports last year claimed that Mr. Manafort, Mr. Trump’s erstwhile campaign manager, sought Russia’s help to bolster his candidate. U.S. surveillance captured the collusion in copious amounts of phone records, the stories said.

CNN declared in September: “Special counsel Robert Mueller’s team, which is leading the investigation into Russia’s involvement in the election, has been provided details of these communications.”

But that and similar reports seemed to be dashed by Kevin Downing, Mr. Manafort’s attorney. He filed a brief in U.S. District Court subject to an accuracy review by a federal judge. In a cut-and-dried manner, he said Mr. Mueller has no evidence that Mr. Manafort communicated with Russian officials.

Mr. Downing is defending Mr. Manafort against federal charges that he laundered money paid by Ukrainian politicians and failed to pay income taxes.

In his filing, Mr. Downing said he specifically asked the Mueller team for any such surveillance evidence during mandatory evidence discovery. Mr. Mueller’s prosecutors answered that they had none. Prosecutors risk having charges dismissed if they fail to comply with discovery rules.

“The special counsel has not produced any materials to the defense — no tapes, notes, transcripts or any other material evidencing surveillance or intercepts of communications between Mr. Manafort and Russian intelligence officials, Russian government officials [or any other foreign officials],” Mr. Downing’s filing said. “The Office of Special Counsel has advised that there are no materials responsive to the request.”

Mr. Downing called the CNN report and others an “elaborate hoax.”

The CNN report said: “Some of the intelligence collected includes communications that sparked concerns among investigators that Manafort had encouraged the Russians to help with the campaign, according to three sources familiar with the investigation.”

In August 2017, the cable news channel said: “CNN has learned that investigators became more suspicious when they turned up intercepted communications that U.S. intelligence agencies collected among suspected Russian operatives discussing their efforts to work with Manafort, who served as campaign chairman for three months, to coordinate information that could damage Hillary Clinton’s election prospects, the U.S. officials say. The suspected operatives relayed what they claimed were conversations with Manafort, encouraging help from the Russians.”

Again, Mr. Mueller, according to Mr. Downing, has asserted to him that prosecutors have no such material.

The New York Times has reported repeatedly that the government owns intercepts of Mr. Manafort and other Trump aides talking to Russians.

 

Read more: Democrats’ and media’s Trump-Russia collusion narrative falls apart

MUELLER TO DELAY SPEEDY TRIAL DEMANDED BY INDICTED RUSSIAN COMPANY

Posted on

 

( Daily Caller ) Special Counsel Robert Mueller requested his Russian collusion trial be delayed indefinitely

  • This is the second time Mueller has requested a delay
  • Mueller previously flooded the court with two terabytes of Russian social media

 

Special Counsel Robert Mueller asked a federal judge Tuesday to reject the four-decade-old speedy trial law in the case against 13 Russians and three Russian companies and has asked for an indefinite delay to the Russian collusion trial.

It is the second time Mueller tried to delay the trial. Judge Dabney L. Friedrich, a Trump appointee, rejected the earlier request without comment and ordered the case to go forward. (RELATED: Mueller Wants To Flood Russian Collusion Case With 2 Terabytes Of Russian Social Media Content Without Translation)

One of the Russian companies — Concord Management and Consulting — entered the U.S., hired American lawyers, and demanded a speedy trial. The Speedy Trial Act is a 44-year old federal law that dictates that a federal criminal case must begin within 70 days from the date of the indictment.

The “complexity” of the case warrants excluding the speedy trial law and delaying the trial, Mueller argued in Tuesday’s court filing.

 

Read more: Mueller Rejects Speedy Trial Law To Delay Russian Collusion Trial

NYT Admits Still No Evidence of Trump Collusion With Russia – buries in paragraph 70 of the story

Posted on

( The Federalist ) In paragraph 69 of the lengthy story, The New York Times takes itself to task for burying the lede in its October 31, 2016, story about the FBI not finding any proof of involvement with Russian election meddling.

The key fact of the article — that the F.B.I. had opened a broad investigation into possible links between the Russian government and the Trump campaign — was published in the 10th paragraph.

It is somewhat funny, then, to read what The New York Times buries in paragraph 70 of the story:

A year and a half later, no public evidence has surfaced connecting Mr. Trump’s advisers to the hacking or linking Mr. Trump himself to the Russian government’s disruptive efforts.

No evidence of collusion after two years of investigation with unlimited resources? You don’t say! What could that mean?

 

Read more: http://thefederalist.com/2018/05/17/10-key-takeaways-from-new-york-times-error-ridden-defense-of-fbi-spying-on-trump-campaign/