Assign a 'primary' menu

The Rigged Mueller Investigation Looks Even Worse After Google Testifies Again in Front of Congress

You are here:
Home
Blog
Uncategorized
The Rigged Mueller Investigation Looks Even Worse After Google Testifies Again in Front of Congress

Never-mind, that every one of the 14 lawyers selected by Robert Mueller for the “Russian Collusion” investigation are all Democrats who have contributed to Hillary or other Democrats campaigns. It’s not a leap of logic to assume they would have some bias against Donald Trump and Republicans, despite Democrat claims otherwise.

Never-mind, that it is now known that the Russian Dossier, which was paid for by a combination of Hillary campaign funds and the Democratic National Committee, was never corroborated by the FBI before submitting it as a primary tool of evidence to have FISA spy-on-citizens warrants issued 4 times. The last of which was signed off on by the person responsible for the DOJ oversight of the investigation- Rob Rosenstein and twice by Robert Comey.

Nor did Hillary correctly report the money spent on the dossier for Russian agent statements as a campaign expenditure. She only reported it as a payment to a law firm, not for its actual purpose.

Never-mind that over $30 million and over 18 months of intense investigation has not yielded even one indictment directly related to Donald Trump and Russian Collusion.

Instead, they have entrapped General Flynn on lying to congress, indicted Paul Manafort on allegations from a decade ago and nailed one of Trump’s lawyers, Michael Cohen, on tax evasion. Nothing Russia related except those supposedly numerous indictments issued to Russians that will never appear here in court which the media and Dems make such a big deal about like it really means something.

Now, that Google has appeared once again in front of Congress we can take a bit closer peek at that issue and see just how important those indictments may be.

[youtube_advanced url=”https://youtu.be/qv5XwpY4blU” controls=”no” rel=”no” theme=”light”]http://bit.ly/2ukACda[/youtube_advanced]

Google CEO Sundar Pichai to Congress

Fortunately, the Google CEO Sundark Pichai, has provided us with the “full extent” of the so-called Russian election meddling which took place on their platform during all of 2016. It totaled a massive $4,700.00 on some digital advertisements.

Pichai was asked by Representative Jerry Nadler, D- NY and ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee:

Does Google now know the full extent to which its online platforms were exploited by Russian actors in the election two years ago?

Pichai responded:

We have. We undertook a very thorough investigation, and , in 2016, we now know that there were two main ad accounts linked to Russia which advertised on Google for about $4,700 in advertising.

Nadler confirmed: “A total of $4,700.00?”

“That’s right.” Pichai Responded

Some Perspective on That $4,700

According to data compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics, Google employees and executives contributed $1.6 million to 2016 Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. That’s a little more than 340 times the amount the Russian’s spent. Not to mention that we now have good reason to believe that Google rigged their search algorithims to favor Democrats.

On the other hand, according to Open Secrets, Hillary Clinton spent $795,000,000 or nearly a Billion $ on her campaign. That’s over 169,000 times what the Russians spent on Google.

On the other hand, the Mueller team has spent over $20 million on the investigation, maybe more, and yielded pretty much nothing related to Russian collusion on the part of the Trump campaign which was the primary mission of the investigation.

On the whole, we are expected to believe that the $4,700 on ads spent by the Russians was enough to sway the entire 2016 election. At least enough to launch a major special counsel which has dragged on for nearly two years now.

What Isn’t Investigated- The FISA Warrants and Russian Dossier Connection

In April 2016, Marc Elias, the attorney of record for both the Clinton presidential campaign and the Democratic National Committee, hired a company called Fusion GPS, founded by former journalist Glenn Simpson, to develop negative information on Trump. Fusion GPS, in turn, hired former British MI6 spy Christopher Steele who worked for a private British intelligence firm called Orbis Business Intelligence.

Steele, never even traveled to Russia to get his so-called “intelligence”. He simply claimed to have Kremlin-connected sources even though he had not set foot in Russia since the 1990’s. Although no specific source for the information was cited, Steele created the “dossier” which consisted of 17 consecutive memos written by Steele in 2016.

This “Russian Dossier” about Donald Trump’s alleged activities in Moscow was then used as a primary piece of evidence to issue 4 FISA requests to allow Trump to be spied upon by government intelligence agencies. The dossier was based solely on multiple anonymous hearsay accounts from inherently unreliable sources in Russia who were, notably, experts in lies and disinformation and never confirmed.

Steele met with the FBI on July 5, 2016. Steele later admitted that he was passionate about Donald Trump not getting elected. The FBI opened its criminal probe of Trump on July 31, 2016 calling it a counter-intelligence investigation.

Clinton lawyer Elias’ firm received $12.6 million during the Clinton campaign. Fusion GPS received $1.02 million and Steele’s company Orbis, earned $168,000 for his work. The House Intelligence Committee released a memo (dubbed the “Nunes Memo” by the media) on February 2, 2018 which affirmed that the “dossier” was funded by the Clinton campaign and the DNC. Hillary Clinton tried to dismiss her role in paying for the “dossier” by stating that it was simply “opposition research.”

However, opposition research is based on fact, from voting records, court records and public statements, to tax returns and business relationships. Fusion GPS’s dossier, on the other hand, was unverified, misinformation.

The “dossier” became public in January 2017.

What Needs to Be Investigated

Democrats issued a memo in response to the “Nunes Memo” which was called the “Schiff Memo” which claimed the FISA court was properly informed about the partisan backing of the “dossier.”

Two Peas in a Pod

Facts demonstrate that cryptic references were buried in the footnotes which disguised specific names or identities of the Clinton campaign and the DNC. This is hardly an effective way of informing the court, especially when the funding of the “dossier” by a political opponent is an indispensable fact for consideration by a judge who is attempting to discern both credibility and motivations.

Steele’s partisan funding should have been clearly and deliberately highlighted for the court. The funding sources for the “dossier” were intentionally and cryptically buried in the footnote.

Conveniently also unreported by the “Schiff Memo” was the fact that Christopher Steele, the primary source of the “dossier”, was fired by the FBI for lying and using mainly anonymous sources which could not be determined or substantiated.

Also, unreported by the “Schiff Memo” was Deputy Director Andrew McCabe’s closed door testimony that no FISA warrant would have been sought without the “dossier”. While Schiff and the Democrats insist this was inaccurate, the “Schiff Memo” offered nothing to disprove the McCabe testimony.

All of this points to actual Russian collusion on the part of Hillary Clinton as well as campaign fund violations as she failed to accurately report this expenditure.

Yet, the highly biased Mueller investigation has failed to follow up on any of this publicly available information. It doesn’t take a political or legal expert to figure out why. Let’s just call it swamp collusion.

In short, what it does is make a mockery of our system of justice. We can expect that it will get buried by the House investigative committee in January for sure. Pray for justice. We need it desperately before we really do turn into a clone of the Russia that the Dems and left-stream media have so fervently protested but, in fact, it seems to be modeling.