Mueller withheld Exculpatory Evidence from Court to Exonerate Trump – Mueller LIED to the Court!

originally posted by: Extorris

originally posted by: Deetermined
a reply to: Extorris

Everything listed in all of those pages are supposedly things Cohen lied about, you're not pointing out anything of value or making a point at all for that matter, much less addressing the topic of our conversation.

That is a strangely disconnected response.

I answered your post directly: "show me where it says that Cohen lied about communicating anything past January 2016 to the Trumps."

Your first mistake is thinking that "Individual 2" is Trump, when it's not. That's already been explained elsewhere. Reports are stating that Trump is "Individual 1" in the transcripts.

a reply to: Extorris

There is zero evidence that the Special Counsel has leaked any information about the investigation.

Did you already forget that an FOIA request resulted in proof that there were 9,000 pages of contact made with the media from Mueller's Special Counsel?

Listen, you're in too much of a frenzy to hold a decent discussion on this. I'm moving on.

a reply to: Deetermined

Corsi is a liar. He even admitted it himself.

The only info we have out of Mueller is his indicemtnes and the stuff that people he has interviewed have gone of tv to talk about. Like Sam Nunberg. Like Carter Page... Nothing has come from Muellers people.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Deetermined

Corsi is a liar. He even admitted it himself.

The only info we have out of Mueller is his indicemtnes and the stuff that people he has interviewed have gone of tv to talk about. Like Sam Nunberg. Like Carter Page... Nothing has come from Muellers people.

Regardless of what you think of Corsi, the FOIA request and documentation was provided by Judicial Watch showing that Mueller's team had 9,000 written pages of contact with the news media.

a reply to: xuenchen

Ha ha yeah she was let in to make her case for the rescinding of the Magnitsky act.

Her meeting with the trumps was extracurricular. Im betting she didnt list that on her visa request.

What a joke you are acting like having her visa approved matters. LOL. Oh and that Lynch did it herself.... thats a real joke. Because Im so sure that the Attorney General was in the business of approving visas. NOT...
Give us all a break. Your elastic truth has no stretch left in it.

a reply to: Deetermined

Judicial watch is a joke. They have only one goal.
They have no legs to stand on.
There is no documentation proving what you are saying.
You are just saying it.

Muellers team has not leaked anything.

And if you have any real proof of that please show it.
Where is the news agencies saying anyone on Muellers team was their source. Or even hinted that their source was within
the special councils office.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Deetermined

Judicial watch is a joke. They have only one goal.
They have no legs to stand on.
There is no documentation proving what you are saying.
You are just saying it.

Muellers team has not leaked anything.

And if you have any real proof of that please show it.
Where is the news agencies saying anyone on Muellers team was their source. Or even hinted that their source was within
the special councils office.

You can deny and lie all you want, but it doesn't change the facts that have already been posted on page 3 of this thread.

a reply to: Rewey

Deniability and the nature of covert operations.

Do you not think Putin calling up then Presidential Candidate Trump to discuss potential treasonous activity would be an obvious unprecedented risk?

I do not believe that citizen Donald Trump directly worked for Vladimir Putin. I think there is strong evidence of a campaign by FSB to cultivate Trump as an asset or tool. The FSB is known to gather Kompromat if possible on everyone American of wealth or power or influence that visits Russia, it is standard practice. The FSB believes in the long game.
Once he became a candidate for President of the United States they paid closer attention to Trump. The interference campaign spearheaded by the FSB at Putin's direction began as primarily Anti-Hillary Clinton. Putin really, really, really hates that woman for multiple reasons. By the end of May Trump, to the FSB's surprise and everyone else's, was the Presumptive Republican Nominee for President facing off against Clinton. That is when the FSB looked to engage in horse trading with the Trump Campaign and offered the anti-Clinton "dirt" they had collected plus bot-troll armies as a resource in trade for favorable policy from the US. These trades begin with demonstrations of sincerity. Manafort was at both the Trump Tower meeting and led the Trump's Convention Nomination.

end of May 2016, Trump has all the Votes to be the next Nominee and closest competitors have dropped out

June 9th, 2016 (We have hacked the DNC and can release emails severely damaging to Hillary Clinton, what can you promise us in return)
Trump tower meeting to discuss “Dirt on Hillary Clinton”

The Crown prosecutor of Russia met with his father Aras this morning and in their meeting offered to provide the Trump campaign with some official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful to your father.

This is obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government's support for Mr. Trump - helped along by Aras and Emin.

June 12, 2016 (Public announcement by Assange/FSB asset to let Trump Campaign know they are sincere, BUT he does not release any of it. He waits)
Assange announces WikiLeaks will publish new Clinton-mails

July 18th 2016 (Against protests by RNC Delegates, the Trump Campaign demands language be stripped from the RNC platform condemning Russia for the invasion of Ukraine and nixing the GOPs advocacy for arming Ukraine to help them defend against the aggression)
Republican National Convention
Trump Campaign Members strip language from the Republican National Platform calling for arming and defending Ukraine from Russian aggression.

July 22, 2016 (2 days later Wikileaks Delivers)
WikiLeaks launches DNCLeaks
WikiLeaks publishes the first load of DNC mails


This timeline very clearly shows why the Special Counsel has been laser focused on the Trump Tower meeting.

If any quid-pro-quo was negotiated, it originated either during or as a result of that meeting.
Honestly, I think things got dangerous fast in that meeting and Paul Manafort was the one tasked with follow-up.
Jared Kushner knew enough to exit early and Donald Junior not far behind him.
Paul Manafort is the one to make those kinds of deals.

All of it speculation, but I will be interested to see what evidence the Special Counsel has and what conclusions he comes to.

originally posted by: Deetermined
a reply to: Extorris

There is zero evidence that the Special Counsel has leaked any information about the investigation.

Did you already forget that an FOIA request resulted in proof that there were 9,000 pages of contact made with the media from Mueller's Special Counsel?

Judicial Watch received all of the 9000 pages from the Press Secretary for the Special Counsel. the last batch came in September.

The fact they didn't report on it suggests the Judge who heard their case back in may was correct

JUDGE:
"I don't know. I may be somewhat cynical. My guess is that you'll probably receive a lot of -- hundreds of pages of documents that essentially say 'no comment,' but I may be shocked if that's not the case," he added.

www.cnn.com...

originally posted by: Deetermined

originally posted by: Extorris

originally posted by: Deetermined
a reply to: Extorris

Everything listed in all of those pages are supposedly things Cohen lied about, you're not pointing out anything of value or making a point at all for that matter, much less addressing the topic of our conversation.

That is a strangely disconnected response.

I answered your post directly: "show me where it says that Cohen lied about communicating anything past January 2016 to the Trumps."

Your first mistake is thinking that "Individual 2" is Trump, when it's not. That's already been explained elsewhere. Reports are stating that Trump is "Individual 1" in the transcripts.

I am not mistaken?
Individual 2 is Felix Sater
Individual 1 is Trump

They would not explain that he briefed Trump "more than" what he originally testified to or that he also discussed with Trump's family members, unless he had originally lied about those conversations.

He originally said he had not spoken to them about it after January.

This is a statement of OFFENSE/LIES to be corrected from testimony.


cdn.cnn.com...

a reply to: Extorris

Judicial Watch received all of the 9000 pages from the Press Secretary for the Special Counsel. the last batch came in September.

The fact they didn't report on it suggests the Judge who heard their case back in may was correct

I disagree. I'm betting that the information that Corsi used in his criminal complaint against Mueller all came from information obtained from Judicial Watch. You really want us to believe that Mueller's Special Counsel took time to send out 9,000 pages of written documentation stating, "no comment" to the news media? You're still delusional.

a reply to: Extorris

You might want to read those statements again. The second sentence doesn't sound related to the first one under section "a". If there were communications with the Trump family in June of 2016, the second sentence would have specifically said so and it does not. It only states that Cohen lied about the number of times he updated the Trump family on the project and that the project negotiations with Sater continued until June 2016. As an attorney, Meuller would have been very specific about the dates on communications with Trump's family if they happened after January 2016 and he did not. The lie was about the fact that Cohen was still in touch with Sater.

originally posted by: Deetermined
a reply to: Extorris

Judicial Watch received all of the 9000 pages from the Press Secretary for the Special Counsel. the last batch came in September.

The fact they didn't report on it suggests the Judge who heard their case back in may was correct

You really want us to believe that Mueller's Special Counsel took time to send out 9,000 pages of written documentation stating, "no comment" to the news media?

Yes. As the Judge suspected. Each press response of "No Comment" would constitute one page.
Do you really believe that Judicial Watch has uncovered any damning evidence in those 9000 pages, but decided not to publicize it?

The Corsi Complaint only contained one "claim" that they wanted "investigated" which was a dinner appointment with the Press Secretary and some unnamed person.
Both the claim and Corsi himself do not appear to have substance or credibility.

You're still delusional.

Not sure why you feel continued insults serve you well?

It makes you appear frustrated by factual debate or discussion.

a reply to: Extorris

First of all, it looks like Judicial Watch only received 3,400 pages of the 9,000. The DOJ and Mueller's office failed to deliver by the deadline that the judge set. Surprise, surprise! Not!

Here's a download of the emails they did receive in the link below...

drive.google.com...

I just found one interesting email between Peter Carr and Catherine Herridge on October 24, 2017 regarding confirmation of a formal complaint filed against Andrew Weissman for leaking grand jury information to the Associated Press. It looks like Peter decided to follow up on this one via telephone instead of email.

originally posted by: Deetermined
a reply to: Extorris

First of all, it looks like Judicial Watch only received 3,400 pages of the 9,000. The DOJ and Mueller's office failed to deliver by the deadline that the judge set. Surprise, surprise! Not!

Here's a download of the emails they did receive in the link below...

drive.google.com...

I just found one interesting email between Peter Carr and Catherine Herridge on October 24, 2017 regarding confirmation of a formal complaint filed against Andrew Weissman for leaking grand jury information to the Associated Press. It looks like Peter decided to follow up on this one via telephone instead of email.

This might interest you:
www.politico.com...

What was the outcome of the complaint against Weissman?
Do you have a link supporting that Judicial watch only got 3,400 pages of the 9,000?
The court ruled they had to turn over everything by September.
I have seen nothing from Judicial Watch since then claiming they didn't?

a reply to: Deetermined

And it appears Judge Ellis did not find Manafort's claims of Grand Jury leaking credible.

www.courthousenews.com...

a reply to: Extorris

This might interest you:
www.politico.com...

What was the outcome of the complaint against Weissman?
Do you have a link supporting that Judicial watch only got 3,400 pages of the 9,000?
The court ruled they had to turn over everything by September.
I have seen nothing from Judicial Watch since then claiming they didn't?

The information on the 3,400 documents came from True Pundit, which is where I also found the link to the Google documents showing the emails. I haven't tried to count them myself from the link.

I did see the Politico article in my search. I found it interesting that Andrew Weissman's meeting with the four reporters from the Associated Press on April 11th also coordinated with other leaks that may have been coordinated through Peter Strzok and Lisa Page to other media outlets around the same time based on the link below:

www.trunews.com...

a reply to: Deetermined

April 11th 2017
Where Andrew Weissman met with the reporters?

The Special Counsel as not appointed until June 14th 2017 and the Grand Jury was impaneled some time after that.

Andrew Weissman was head of the Financial Fraud division at DOJ and building a case against Manafort at the time.

He got folded in the Special Counsel once that was established a month later.

Even if it could be claimed as a leak (which is not clear) that would not qualify as SC or Grand Jury leaking, because it did not exist at the time.

The Link you provided via True Pundit only had a handful of pages from the SC Press office.

Why hasn't Judicial Watch released them?

a reply to: Extorris

It looks like Larry Klayman is getting the runaround from the DOJ and Mueller's office on the remaining documents. In the Google document link, there are copies of a status report from Mueller's office on the documents and another filing to the courts from Klayman in response to it. (See Release 15b, 15c, 15d on last row of documents.) This may be why Freedom Watch/Judicial Watch isn't reporting on it yet.

drive.google.com...

a reply to: Deetermined

Thanks for that.

Interesting that we haven't seen more from Judicial Watch since September?
Is it you opinion they are still waiting on the remaining 6k docs give or take?

Either way it looks to be a TBD scenario until more is released.