Mueller Suspected of Giving Podesta Brothers Immunity and Hiding it from the Public

a reply to: Boadicea

Then there is this -

Paul Sperry
‏ @paulsperry_
2h2 hours ago

BREAKING: Clinton campaign counsel Marc Elias hired CrowdStrike to write the unusual public report blaming Russia for hacking the DNC in June 2016 -- the same month Elias hired Fusion GPS & Steele to write the dossier pinning the hacking on not just Russia but also Trump campaign

ETA -
Crowdstrike Analyst Who Ran Forensics on DNC Server Used to Work For Mueller at FBI

To this day, the DNC servers have not been forensically inspected by the FBI so we have no proof the servers were even hacked, and if hacked, by whom?

Hillary’s fake Russia dossier and Crowdstrike’s report blaming Russia for hacking the DNC server is what the Special Counsel witch hunt hinges on.

It’s all fake. The crime scene, the DNC servers, have yet to even be examined.

James Comey admitted in a June 2017 testimony that the FBI failed to examine the DNC servers and relied on a 3rd party contracted by the DNC [Crowdstrike] confirming the Russians hacked the server.

It appears Robert Mueller has also relied on Crowdstrike’s analysis the Russians hacked the DNC server because his spox declined to comment.

Robert Mueller knows the Crowdstrike analyst who ran the forensics on the DNC server, in fact, the analyst worked for Mueller when he was the Director of the FBI; Mueller personally promoted him.

“The Crowdstrike analyst who ran the forensics on the DNC servers worked for Mueller at the FBI and was personally promoted by Robert Mueller,” reports Paul Sperry.

click link for article...

a reply to: Boadicea

The immunity granted is for 5 potential witnesses and the immunity only appliees if any of them are called as witnesses at the trial. As I understand it thats the only immunity granted and as you pointed out Judge Ellis has not ruled on it yet.

Because they are potential "witnesses" the motion was filed under seal and the names of the witnesses are restricted unless called to appear in court.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Holy f****** sh**!!!!

a reply to: CigaretteByrnes

Oh, you guys heard about the indictments and scoured the internet for a version of the story that most lines up with your fantasy! Cool. No one knows who it is, and you guys are getting on the wild, flailing desperation train. Its not a good look. Be Best.

Oh dear... how very very sad. But okay. Let's start at the beginning: Speaking for myself, that would be "gal," not "guy." And yes, I did hear about the indictments when they happened -- some weeks ago, some months ago. But no, I did not "scour the internet" for anything, much less a particular "version". Rather, I like to read lots of perspectives and angles and subjects so I tend to frequent news aggregator sites... no need to scour the internet because they do it for me! And then I find what I find. And this morning I found this. It's like magic!!! As for having some fantasy in this regard, are you freaking kidding me? I have much better things to fantasize about! This just is what it is. But I already see that you have a problem seeing things for what they are, so let me help you out a little more...

As I pointed out immediately, the title of the article is misleading, and I explained how and why. I very specifically noted that the only suspicion I found came from one source. And I scrupulously noted what was fact and what was suspicion. I made no assumptions whatsoever.

I then went on to admit my lack of knowledge on the matter, and ask for further information, including several questions -- NOT statements, but questions. By definition, asking questions is doing the exact opposite of claiming to know anything.

It's not the one seeking further information who is "getting on the wild, flailing desperation train."

FYI: I have it on very good authority that its not a good look.

Be Best.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Konduit
These guys lobbied on behalf of Russia to remove sanctions for years. Why is nobody bringing this up? Not to mention Clinton and Obama selling 20% of America's Uranium to them. It's #ing insane.

Have you ever bothered to actually research the Uranium sales?

Uranium is a commodity that's bought/sold/traded all the time.

Uranium has many uses.

You can invest in Uranium, but why don't you have a go at having some delivered and see where you get to...
One thing is for certain, Robert Mueller won't turn up to deliver a sample of the goods for you.

Because of the constant and continued Sensationalism of the "Uranium Deal" - - I took the time to actually research it.

I suggest you and everyone else who continues to use it for Sensationalized purpose - - do the same.

Facts are enlightening.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Boadicea

The immunity granted is for 5 potential witnesses and the immunity only appliees if any of them are called as witnesses at the trial. As I understand it thats the only immunity granted and as you pointed out Judge Ellis has not ruled on it yet.

Because they are potential "witnesses" the motion was filed under seal and the names of the witnesses are restricted unless called to appear in court.

So - - at this time its only speculation on who these 5 witnesses are.

Correct?

a reply to: Annee

Obama Admin Lied; New Memos Reveal Uranium One Exports To "Europe And Asia" Via Canada

As the mainstream media continues to obsess over $100,000 worth Facebook ads allegedly purchased by Russian spies in 2016 seeking to throw the presidential election, behind the scenes, far removed from the sight of CNN and MSNBC, the Uranium One scandal, in which the Obama administration approved a deal that handed a Russian-controlled corporation 20% of America's uranium reserves despite the existence of an FBI investigation into ongoing illegal bribery, extortion and money laundering schemes, is slowly spiraling out of control...despite CNN's continued ignorance of the topic.

By now we're sure that most of our readers are well aware that Obama's approval of the Uranium One deal seemingly landed the Clinton Foundation some $145 million in donations and a $500,000 speaking gig for former President Bill Clinton from a very thankful Russian bank...if not, here are a couple of recent posts on the topic as a recap:

FBI Uncovered Russian Bribery Plot Before Obama Approved Uranium One Deal, Netting Clintons Millions
Emails Reveal Bill Clinton Met With Vladimir Putin Just Before Uranium One Deal
FBI Informant "Threatened" After Offering Details Linking Clinton Foundation To Russian Bribery Case

That said, one thing that you probably don't know yet, primarily because of the Obama administration's proactive attempt conceal such information, is that despite repeated assurances from Congress and Obama's Nuclear Regulatory Commission that U.S. uranium reserves wouldn't leave U.S. shores, it, in fact, did.

click link for full article and supporting links.

a reply to: The GUT

We already know Tony Podesta was involved with whatever went on with Manafort and the lobbying. It's odd that he hasn't been charged as well. Had to shut down his business for it, but so far nuthin'.

As I recall, they were also allowed to amend their filings to declare themselves as "agents" working for Russian interests... with no legal repercussions of course. The Podestas have made a fortune working for the Russians.

a reply to: Boadicea

I’m no legal eagle, but 5vs1 seems like a bit of overkill against Manafort. I could understand one or two key witnesses. 5 makes it sound like the RICO act applies...

originally posted by: Konduit
These guys lobbied on behalf of Russia to remove sanctions for years. Why is nobody bringing this up? Not to mention Clinton and Obama selling 20% of America's Uranium to them. It's #ing insane.

Actually, the lobbying wasn't to remove sanctions. The lobbying was pro-Yanukovych regime. "Clinton and Obama selling 20% of American's uranium" to the Russians is less than a stupid talking point.

Let me break this down for you real quick for the 1,000th time so that maybe you will stop spreading complete disinformation.

Nothing about the Uranium One deal could be construed as an American selling 20% of America's uranium to anyone. Uranium One was a Canadian company with two uranium mines in the United States. It's believed that the mines could hold as much as 20% of the US's proved uranium reserves.

What was approved by CFIUS in 2010 was the acquisition of a controlling interest in Uranium One by ARMZ (a Rosatom subsidiary). The reason that US regulators were involved was because Uranium One had the US mines. The deal was also approved by Canadian regulators as well as those in other countries where it had mines (South Africa, Australia I believe and Kazakhstan) as well as Russian regulators (sure that wasn't hard) and finally at least two stock markets where shares were traded.

Export of uranium is controlled by the NRC. The United States is a net uranium importer. The US accounts for 1% or less of the world's uranium reserves. The only uranium that has been exported by Uranium One was exported to Canada (for processing) between 2012-2014. 75% of that uranium was then imported back to the United States with the remaining 25% being exported to Japan and Western Europe.

So on its face, your "they sold 20% of the uranium!" claim is wholly false. No US entity *sold* the Russians *anything*.

Furthermore, Clinton wasn't even involved in the CFIUS deliberations or vote pertaining to the deal. That was Jose Fernandez, the assistant secretary of state for business and economic affairs. He cast 1 of 9 votes in CFIUS to approve the deal.

What's #ing insane is this low info meme.

a reply to: AndyFromMichigan

Muller's team has even filed motions trying to prevent Manafort's defense attorney from arguing selective prosecution. Specifically because of the question of why the Podestas didn't get charged for doing the exact same thing.

Clearly, those bullets are hitting very close to the bulls-eye.

I'm getting pretty fed up with judges and prosecutors telling defendants (and therefore jurors) what is and is not an acceptable defense. The same thing happened with the Bundys, and the judge/prosecutor ruling that the defendants could not use self-defense as a defense, and wouldn't allow any evidence of the federal threats and abuse in court.

a reply to: Xcathdra


Ah, yes - - Tyler Durden.


I've researched "him" too.

Zero Hedge was established in 2009. According to the Boston Business Journal, the website "publishes financial news and opinion, aggregated and original" from a number of writers "who purportedly hail from within the financial industry."[8] Posts on the website are signed "Tyler Durden," a character in the Chuck Palahniuk book and movie Fight Club.[8][9]
In 2009, shortly after the blog was founded, news reports identified Daniel Ivandjiiski, a Bulgarian-born former hedge-fund analyst who was barred from the industry for insider trading by FINRA in 2008, as the founder of the site, and reported that "Durden" was a pseudonym for Ivandjiiski.[9][10][11][5] One contributor, who spoke to New York magazine after an interview was arranged by Ivandjiiski, said that "up to 40" people were permitted to post under the "Durden" name.[9] The website is registered in Bulgaria at the same address as that of Strogo Sekretno, a site run by Ivandjiiski's father, Krassimir Ivandjiiski.[12] Zero Hedge is registered under the name Georgi Georgiev, a business partner of Krassimir Ivandjiiski.[13]
In April 2016, the authors writing as "Durden" on the website were reported by Bloomberg News to be Ivandjiiski, Tim Backshall (a credit derivatives strategist), and Colin Lokey. Lokey, the newest member revealed himself and the other two when he left the site in April 2016. Ivandjiiski confirmed that the three men "had been the only Tyler Durdens on the payroll" since Lokey joined the site in 2015.[5] en.wikipedia.org...

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Konduit
These guys lobbied on behalf of Russia to remove sanctions for years. Why is nobody bringing this up? Not to mention Clinton and Obama selling 20% of America's Uranium to them. It's #ing insane.

Have you ever bothered to actually research the Uranium sales?

Uranium is a commodity that's bought/sold/traded all the time.

Uranium has many uses.

You can invest in Uranium, but why don't you have a go at having some delivered and see where you get to...
One thing is for certain, Robert Mueller won't turn up to deliver a sample of the goods for you.

Because of the constant and continued Sensationalism of the "Uranium Deal" - - I took the time to actually research it.

I suggest you and everyone else who continues to use it for Sensationalized purpose - - do the same.

Facts are enlightening.

Stay off The Onion. It's only marginally better than CNN for truth.

a reply to: Xcathdra

She's researched it don't you know.
I am hoping to get my stash of uranium delivered next week to my warehouse.
/sarcasm off.

originally posted by: UKTruth
So he is prosecuting one man, whilst giving at least two others immunity for doing the same thing.
Ah, justice.

Just to be clear, that's the suspicion... but we cannot know for sure because Mueller has asked for the witnesses' names to be sealed.

However, it is the suspicion and it is a possibility. The Podestas would seem to be in a position to know something...

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: AndyFromMichigan

Muller's team has even filed motions trying to prevent Manafort's defense attorney from arguing selective prosecution. Specifically because of the question of why the Podestas didn't get charged for doing the exact same thing.

Clearly, those bullets are hitting very close to the bulls-eye.

I'm getting pretty fed up with judges and prosecutors telling defendants (and therefore jurors) what is and is not an acceptable defense. The same thing happened with the Bundys, and the judge/prosecutor ruling that the defendants could not use self-defense as a defense, and wouldn't allow any evidence of the federal threats and abuse in court.

The motion by Mueller came from Manaforts in limine motion. They wanted Mueller to define his prosecution which is why Mueller said he would not be raising any Trump Russia collusion in Manaforts prosecution. By doing this Muellers motion is to prohibit Manafort from raising issues related to that investigation. By extension it prevents Manafort from attacking the prosecutions prosecution basis that stemmed from the Russia investigation.

The other was to prevent Manafort from arguing selective prosecution however if Podestas are given immunity I dont see how that motion could be granted.

Defense witness #1 will most likely be Rod Rosenstein. He was the US attorney who cleared Manafort of all of these charges a decade + ago.

originally posted by: Annee
a reply to: Xcathdra


Ah, yes - - Tyler Durden.


I've researched "him" too.

Apparently not since their article is based of the Hills research into it.

Uranium One deal led to some exports to Europe, memos show

After the Obama administration approved the sale of a Canadian mining company with significant U.S. uranium reserves to a firm owned by Russia’s government, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission assured Congress and the public the new owners couldn’t export any raw nuclear fuel from America’s shores.

“No uranium produced at either facility may be exported,” the NRC declared in a November 2010 press release that announced that ARMZ, a subsidiary of the Russian state-owned Rosatom, had been approved to take ownership of the Uranium One mining firm and its American assets.

A year later, the nuclear regulator repeated the assurance in a letter to Sen. John Barrasso, a Wyoming Republican in whose state Uranium One operated mines.

“Neither Uranium One Inc. nor AMRZ holds a specific NRC export license. In order to export uranium from the United States, Uranium One Inc. or ARMZ would need to apply for and obtain a specific NRC license authorizing the exports of uranium for use in reactor fuel,” then-NRC Chairman Gregory Jaczko wrote to Barrasso.

The NRC never issued an export license to the Russian firm, a fact so engrained in the narrative of the Uranium One controversy that it showed up in The Washington Post’s official fact-checker site this week. “We have noted repeatedly that extracted uranium could not be exported by Russia without a license, which Rosatom does not have,” the Post reported on Monday, linking to the 2011 Barrasso letter.

Yet NRC memos reviewed by The Hill show that it did approve the shipment of yellowcake uranium — the raw material used to make nuclear fuel and weapons — from the Russian-owned mines in the United States to Canada in 2012 through a third party. Later, the Obama administration approved some of that uranium going all the way to Europe, government documents show.

and the kicker -

Rather than give Rosatom a direct export license — which would have raised red flags inside a Congress already suspicious of the deal — the NRC in 2012 authorized an amendment to an existing export license for a Paducah, Ky.-based trucking firm called RSB Logistics Services Inc. to simply add Uranium One to the list of clients whose uranium it could move to Canada.

The license, reviewed by The Hill, is dated March 16, 2012, and it increased the amount of uranium ore concentrate that RSB Logistics could ship to the Cameco Corp. plant in Ontario from 7,500,000 kilograms to 12,000,000 kilograms and added Uranium One to the “other parties to Export.”

The move escaped notice in Congress.

Officials at RSB, Cameco and Rosatom did not return repeated phone calls or emails seeking comment.

Uranium One's American arm, however, emailed a statement to The Hill on Wednesday evening confirming it did export uranium to Canada through the trucking firm and that 25 percent of that nuclear fuel eventually made its way outside North America to Europe and Asia, stressing all the exports complied with federal law.

So you have Uranium One confirming that 25% of their Uranium was in fact shipped outside the US to Europe and Asia.

Now do you want to ignore Uranium One's own statements on what they did?

a reply to: Boadicea

So you just pulled the podesta part out of your butt I guess?!??

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: Boadicea

So you just pulled the podesta part out of your butt I guess?!??

Deductive reasoning since the Podesta legal issues dropped off the face of the planet. Manafort and the Podestas worked together in Ukraine, which is where the charges against Manafort are based.

a reply to: Xcathdra

How did they obtain indictments based on this "evidence"?
There is no way a jury would convict anyone based on that "evidence".