Mueller Grand Jury Approves First Charges – CNN Creates Fake News in Fusion GPS Funding Story

Posted by Tina

Who colluded with Russians to affect the election? Looks more and more like it was Hillary Clinton and the DNC!

Well now…the Mueller grand jury has come to at least one conclusion. The first charges to come out of the Russia investigation have been filed, although the charges have been sealed. Individual/s charged could be taken into custody as soon as Monday, we’re told. Mueller is authorized to look into “any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation,” into Russian collusion according to the order issued by Rosenstein.

That means Mueller and company can investigate any matter…any matter…that arises as they investigate Trump and Russians.

Stirring the pot, CNN created a misleading chyron today as Wolf Blitzer reported on funding of the nasty fake dossier on Trump that led to this investigation:

“Who’s the anti-Trump Republican who helped fund the dossier?” the chyron misleadingly asks. … Christopher Steele and the dossier did not become a part of the Fusion GPS situation until that Republican ended their contract and the DNC and Clinton campaign took over payment.

Christopher Steele is the former British intelligence officer who created the fake dossier using his Russian spying expertise. He was brought in by Fusion after the DNC and Hillary hired them. Important information regarding the dossier is at The Federalist for those who haven’t seen it.

It had better not be someone in the Trump administration or campaign that falls on Monday in this broad investigation. Given the frenzied “Russia,Russia, Russia, media campaign using this discredited dossier and given details that have emerged regarding Hillary’s campaign and the DNC’s funding this dossier to destroy Trump both before and after the election, it had better be some person or persons tied to them!

Oh yeah…you just had to see this:


This entry was posted in Constitution and Law, Morals and Ethics. Bookmark the permalink.

13 Responses to Mueller Grand Jury Approves First Charges – CNN Creates Fake News in Fusion GPS Funding Story

  1. Peggy says:

    Mueller’s announcement of charges being filed is a full force counter attack to tying Hillary to the dossier. A total distraction, which the Dems are experts at.

    Sessions need sto announce a new special council to investigate the uranium deal with an open field to any related and unrelated matters, just like Mueller’s council.

    I think the charge/s will be against Manafort and/or Flynn. Since Manafort only worked for the Trump campaign it’s suspicious with his extensive past experience with Russia connection he was hired in the first place and let go so soon. Both men must have a wealth of information they might be willing to trade for a better deal. The question is against whom?

    • Tina says:

      Agree Sessions needs to open special council…or two or three! There’s enough to investigate in the dem party to keep justice busy for decades!

      You’re probably right about Manafort or Fynn but that would make it all the more despicable since a simple cursory investigation into any Democrat with an equal intent to discover wrongdoing would result in a sure conviction…no doubt about it!

      The main reason we on the right are so angry is the double standard that ensures members of the dem party get away with so much. Enabling enemies, giving away technology and compromising our security, colluding for personal gain…we are fed up!

      • Peggy says:

        I highly expect Trump will order Sessions to start at least one investigation committee. He hits back when he’s been hit. And if they perp-walk this person for the whole world to see instead of notifying them or their attorney and allowing them to turn themselves in Trump will probably have more then one committee set up.

        One of the major reasons the base likes Trump is he fights back unlike prior republican presidents for as far back as Reagan. His fighting back is also the reason Dems hate him. They’re not used to not getting what they want, when they want every time.

  2. Chris says:

    You are ridiculous. The dossier has not been discredited and multiple have been confirmed. That the DNC funded it after anti-Trump Republicans does nothing to discredit it, nor is there anything corrupt about either side doing so. The Uranium story has been shown to be a nothingburger again and again. Multiple agencies had to approve that deal and there is no evidence they did so as part of any quid pro quo.

    What we do know is this:

    —Trump publicly encouraged Russian meddling to assist him in beating Hillary.
    —Members of Trump’s team met with a lawyer who specifically told them she had dirt on Hillary from the Russian government.
    —Kushner proposed a secret back channel of communications to Russia from the White House.
    —Kusher and others lied about Russian contacts on their security clearance forms.
    —The Russian government actively attempted to influence the election to hurt Hillary and help Trump, a fact that Trump has repeatedly called into question.

    This is all evidence of corruption. I am glad charges are finally being fired and hope justice is served.

    • Peggy says:

      Chris, in addition to the info. Tina provided you might find this helpful too.

      “When planning a trip to Moscow for a speaking engagement in June 2010, former President Bill Clinton reportedly tried to meet with an official who was part of a Russian state-run company seeking approval to purchase a uranium company with holdings in the United States. Instead, Clinton ended up meeting Vladimir Putin.

      A month prior to the trip, Clinton, whose wife, Hillary Clinton, was secretary of state at the time, asked the State Department if it had any “concerns” about a list of 15 people he intended to meet in Russia, The Hill reported Thursday, citing emails and government records.

      Among them was Arkady Dvorkovich, an aide to Russia’s president at the time, Dmitri Medvedev, and a board director of Rosatom, the state-run atomic energy agency that was vying for a majority stake in Canadian company Uranium One. The company had mines in the United States, and if the deal went through, Russia would gain control of 20 percent of the U.S.’s uranium.”

      Chris, here is another excellent article that lays the whole Russia uranium gate out. As of now $145 million has been deposited into the Clinton Foundation by nine members connected to the uranium deal. Not pocket change by anyone’s standards.

      “Author Jim Rickards claims that James Clapper, former Director of National Intelligence, disbanded the CFIUS advisory for the intel community just before the Uranium One deal was approved.

      The Chairman of Uranium One is on the Clinton Foundation Board and a close friend of the Clintons, and as the deal was being considered by approval by CFIUS, nine members of Uranium One contributed more than $145 million to the Clinton Foundation, long exposed as a Clinton family piggy bank. Yellow cake from these uranium mines “has gone to some unknown destination” since the sale was approved.”

      • Peggy says:

        Here’s another article from 2015 with interesting information.

        “The headline on the website Pravda trumpeted President Vladimir V. Putin’s latest coup, its nationalistic fervor recalling an era when its precursor served as the official mouthpiece of the Kremlin: “Russian Nuclear Energy Conquers the World.”

        The article, in January 2013, detailed how the Russian atomic energy agency, Rosatom, had taken over a Canadian company with uranium-mining stakes stretching from Central Asia to the American West. The deal made Rosatom one of the world’s largest uranium producers and brought Mr. Putin closer to his goal of controlling much of the global uranium supply chain.

        At the time, both Rosatom and the United States government made promises intended to ease concerns about ceding control of the company’s assets to the Russians. Those promises have been repeatedly broken, records show.

        The New York Times’s examination of the Uranium One deal is based on dozens of interviews, as well as a review of public records and securities filings in Canada, Russia and the United States.

        American political campaigns are barred from accepting foreign donations. But foreigners may give to foundations in the United States. In the days since Mrs. Clinton announced her candidacy for president, the Clinton Foundation has announced changes meant to quell longstanding concerns about potential conflicts of interest in such donations; it has limited donations from foreign governments, with many, like Russia’s, barred from giving to all but its health care initiatives. That policy stops short of a more stringent agreement between Mrs. Clinton and the Obama administration that was in effect while she was secretary of state.

        Either way, the Uranium One deal highlights the limits of such prohibitions. The foundation will continue to accept contributions from foreign sources whose interests, like Uranium One’s, may overlap with those of foreign governments, some of which may be at odds with the United States.

        Now, after Russia’s annexation of Crimea and aggression in Ukraine, the Moscow-Washington relationship is devolving toward Cold War levels, a point several experts made in evaluating a deal so beneficial to Mr. Putin, a man known to use energy resources to project power around the world.

        “Should we be concerned? Absolutely,” said Michael McFaul, who served under Mrs. Clinton as the American ambassador to Russia but said he had been unaware of the Uranium One deal until asked about it. “Do we want Putin to have a monopoly on this? Of course we don’t. We don’t want to be dependent on Putin for anything in this climate.”

        If that last paragraph doesn’t scare you the rest of the article should make you and everyone concerned. Remember this was written by the NY Times back in 2015 and was an Obama supporter.

  3. Tina says:

    “Trump publicly encouraged Russian meddling to assist him in beating Hillary”

    Something he would do IF he were actually colluding? I think not. The very word “colluding connotes secrecy!

    “Members of Trump’s team met with a lawyer who specifically told them she had dirt on Hillary from the Russian government.”

    An apparent ruse to get her foot in the door so she could talk about the Russian adoption issue. She met with Democrats too.

    “Kushner proposed a secret back channel of communications to Russia from the White House.”

    A proposal, or suggestion, is not policy. Show me it was done and how it was illegal or untoward. Back channel talks with leaders of other nations are not new or unusual:

    Powerline, “How Barack Obama Undercut Bush Administration’s Nuclear Negotiations With Iran”

    In 2008, the Bush administration, along with the “six powers,” was negotiating with Iran concerning that country’s nuclear arms program. The Bush administration’s objective was to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. On July 20, 2008, the New York Times headlined: “Nuclear Talks With Iran End in a Deadlock.” What caused the talks to founder? The Times explained:

    Iran responded with a written document that failed to address the main issue: international demands that it stop enriching uranium. And Iranian diplomats reiterated before the talks that they considered the issue nonnegotiable.

    The Iranians held firm to their position, perhaps because they knew that help was on the way, in the form of a new president. Barack Obama had clinched the Democratic nomination on June 3. At some point either before or after that date, but prior to the election, he secretly let the Iranians know that he would be much easier to bargain with than President Bush. Michael Ledeen reported the story last year:

    During his first presidential campaign in 2008, Mr. Obama used a secret back channel to Tehran to assure the mullahs that he was a friend of the Islamic Republic, and that they would be very happy with his policies. The secret channel was Ambassador William G. Miller, who served in Iran during the shah’s rule, as chief of staff for the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, and as ambassador to Ukraine. Ambassador Miller has confirmed to me his conversations with Iranian leaders during the 2008 campaign.

    So Obama secretly told the mullahs not to make a deal until he assumed the presidency, when they would be able to make a better agreement. Which is exactly what happened: Obama abandoned the requirement that Iran stop enriching uranium, so that Iran’s nuclear program has sped ahead over the months and years that negotiations have dragged on. When an interim agreement in the form of a “Joint Plan of Action” was announced in late 2013, Iran’s leaders exulted in the fact that the West had acknowledged its right to continue its uranium enrichment program…

    Mother Jones celebrated Obama’s back channel talks with Cuba!

    When did your party leadership stop being Americans and find common aim with the Marxist regimes in this world? Why does that not bother YOU?

    Chris your precious party leaders have been shown time and again to be up to their eyeballs in deceptive, conniving, corrupt, compromising activity and still you seem to suggest that not a one of them could be crooked, self serving or acting against American ideals and security. You are a total tool.

    November 1, 2016, CBS, “Report: FBI says no direct ties between Russia, Donald Trump’s campaign”

    February 2017, Washington Post, “House Intelligence chairman says he hasn’t found evidence of Trump team’s ties to Russia”

    October 2017, <a href=";, “FBI uncovered Russian bribery plot before Obama administration approved controversial nuclear deal with Moscow”

    Before the Obama administration approved a controversial deal in 2010 giving Moscow control of a large swath of American uranium, the FBI had gathered substantial evidence that Russian nuclear industry officials were engaged in bribery, kickbacks, extortion and money laundering designed to grow Vladimir Putin’s atomic energy business inside the United States, according to government documents and interviews.

    Federal agents used a confidential U.S. witness working inside the Russian nuclear industry to gather extensive financial records, make secret recordings and intercept emails as early as 2009 that showed Moscow had compromised an American uranium trucking firm with bribes and kickbacks in violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, FBI and court documents show.

    They also obtained an eyewitness account — backed by documents — indicating Russian nuclear officials had routed millions of dollars to the U.S. designed to benefit former President Bill Clinton’s charitable foundation during the time Secretary of State Hillary Clinton served on a government body that provided a favorable decision to Moscow, sources told The Hill.

    The racketeering scheme was conducted “with the consent of higher level officials” in Russia who “shared the proceeds” from the kickbacks, one agent declared in an affidavit years later.

    October 2017, Sharyl Attkisson, “17 times Dems, Repubs said no evidence of Trump-Russia collusion; 10 times people claimed there was”

    Sharyl asks an important question, “Here are 17 public statements about lack of evidence by those who have reviewed evidence or been briefed, followed by a sampling of 10 claims against Trump. What were the claims based on if there was no evidence yet?”

    In May 2017, Forbes posted and article, “There Remains No Evidence Of Trump-Russia Collusion” that covers the absurdity of left wing accusations:

    Where is the evidence of President Trump’s collusion with Russia?

    The Wall Street Journal – no particular fan of Trump – characterizes the DOJ charge to Special Counsel, Robert Mueller, as fatally open-ended, vague, and flawed. His instruction lists no federal statutes and invites a fishing expedition into trivial matters. Journalists covering the story appear to disagree on what Mueller is supposed to do: Is he to “oversee the investigation into ties between President Trump’s campaign and Russian officials” or “investigate possible coordination between President Trump’s associates and Russian officials?”

    The political feeding frenzy has, to date, brought forth the following facts of Russiagate: Persons associated with the Trump campaign had contacts with Russians, some unsavory. Trump businesses, like other luxury property developers, had dealings with wealthy Russian buyers. Trump did not condemn Putin during the campaign and expressed a hope (shared by many across the political spectrum) of improved relations.

    These facts shed little light, if any, on collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian state to throw the election to Trump, as is evidenced by the deafening silence of anti-Trumpists. As Jim Geraghty writes in National Review:

    The FBI counterintelligence guys presumably track Russian agents on our soil as much as possible. You figure the NSA can track just about any electronic communication between Russians and figures in the Trump campaign. If there was something sinister and illegal going on…the U.S. government as a whole had every incentive in the world to expose that as quickly as possible.

    Diverse figures and outlets agree that the nexus of “possible collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign” does not include any evidence of collusion. Maxine Waters (D-CA) concedes there is no proof of collusion as does Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) joined by Trump nemesis Lindsey Graham (R-SC). Fox political analyst, Brit Hume, on Sunday’s #MediaBuzz stated that he has never seen a charge get so far out in front of the available evidence over the course of his long career. Matt Taibbi, a left-wing columnist for Rolling Stone who calls Trump the “crazy clown President,” points out that “despite almost daily leaks by anonymous sources, we do not know whether it is about collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian state.” (continues)

    On the other hand, as the Forbes article points out:

    Note that Hillary Clinton’s campaign had “lots of meetings” with Russian officials including Ambassador Kislyak during the campaign, Bill Clinton delivered a $500,000 speech to a Russian oligarch in 2010. The insider Democratic lobbying behemoth, Podesta Group, charged a Kremlin-associated bank $170,000 for lobbying in 2016 for removal of sanctions and $60,000 to Uranium One in 2015 to lobby for a huge uranium deal in favor of Russia. Manafort directed his wealthy Ukrainian/Russia clients to the Podesta Group, which cashed in more than a million dollars in lobbying fees. Democrat heavyweight Lanny Davis represented a fugitive oligarch, who also happened to be a Manafort client. Yes, indeed, Washington’s K-Street swamp is deep and incestuously blurs party affiliation.

    The article continues:

    The political and media establishment looks with distaste at the rough-and-tumble of international business. They, however, look the other way when Al Gore sells his environmental TV network to Al Jazeera for $70 million, the Clinton Foundation accepts $100 million from a Russian-connected uranium magnate, the Bill Clinton campaign accepts almost $400,000 of Chinese funds bundled by a White House regular, or career politicians retiring to million dollar payoffs in K-Street lobbying firms.

    The #NeverTrumpers’ standard refuge to any pooh-poohing of Trump’s Russian ties is that 17 national security agencies agree that Russian higher-ups ordered the hacking and release of DNC emails through WikiLeaks in order to help Trump defeat Hillary Clinton (my italics).

    It is more than likely that Russian hackers (FSB, foreign intelligence officers or hackers-for-hire) hacked the DNC, but the shady world of Russian cyber operations defies efforts of Russia’s freewheeling cyber experts to pin point the blame. Even more difficult is to look inside Putin’s brain. Any intelligence officer who pretends to understand Putin is delusional. We can only look at Russian state-controlled media, which, early in the campaign, spread stories that Hillary’s election meant “World War III.” As Clinton seemed poised to win, the Russian coverage switched to neutral or even favored Clinton. Russian think-tankers and pundits characterized Clinton as a known quality with little upside for Russia. Trump’s unpredictability, inexperience, and hawkishness on defense buildup, on the other hand, alarmed some Russian analysts.

    For Putin, the WikiLeaks emails were a godsend no matter who won. WikiLeaks revealed exploitable flaws in US democracy: US elections are decided by insiders who are doing the bidding of Soros, Goldman Sachs, and the Saudis. The establishment rigs elections against “peoples’’” candidates, like Bernie Sanders. If critics complain about the enrichment of Putin’s inner circle, he only need rehash the antics of the Clinton Foundation. If we complain about his state-run media, Putin need only talk about the cozy relationship between the mainstream media and the Democratic Party. …

    The first few months of the Trump administration have shown that Trump is not acting in Putin’s interests. His appointments to key foreign policy positions are of strong anti-Putin advocates. He has freed American drilling from the restraints put on it by Obama and would have been continued by Clinton. There is no sign that the sanctions will be lifted. If Putin had done his best to help Trump win, Trump has reneged and would have to face Putin’s revenge.

    On the other hand Putin did benefit from his ties to people closely associated with Hillary Clinton while Hillary was at the state department. I suggest you read this article in full…you might learn something more useful and informed than the left talking points by members of the Obama administration/DNC elite club.

    Even the people running the investigation have links to the Clintons and the uranium deal. That should make you at least a little suspicious about what’s happening no matter how much you despise Trump.

    October 20, 2017, Mediaite, “In Case You Missed It: Robert Mueller Was FBI Director During The Russia Uranium Investigation”

    Is it time for Special Counsel Robert Mueller to recuse himself from his investigation into Russian activities in the 2016 presidential election?

    Lost in much of the discussion over this week’s developments in the growing Russia/Uranium/Clinton scandal is the fact that none other than Mueller was the FBI Director during this investigation. And that investigation is under serious scrutiny. …

    … Never-Trumpers and Democrats should be first in line saying “This stinks… let’s get someone else on this Russia collusion thing.”

    Indeed they (you) should!

  4. TruthToPower says:

    Problem is you folks are relying on MSM

    I told you we have the dirt on DNC and Hillary Campaign. This is all old news.
    We on the outside have been investigating and pushing news to the top for over a yr! almost 2!

    The Fake pee Pee dossier ? Most likely was produced on East coast. Top Intel folks have agreed including William Binney.

    Fusion GPS is guilty of many things in this.

    MaCabe , Muller and Comey are dirty. And Yes Mueller was involved in Uranium one. And yes that is a Big deal. Sorry Chris but The evidence is out there. Many people involved not just Hillary’s State Department. – Not Just Democrats –

    The Game is to spend Millions on Fake Investigations and no Indictments.

    I stand By all my words still and you guys are just catching up now?

    Trump is not Clean either -But that is another Ball of Wax.

    If they start indicting people at the Top they all go down Democrats and Republicans along with other world leaders –

    You make fun of people who dig and see the docs then when MSM Picks it up it’s pants On Fire?

    Time to rid ourselves of these 2 corrupt Political parties, Fake Elections, and the Alphabet Agencies with their Ratlines.
    Time to drop these Corrupt Political parties

    las Vegas ? Ya buying the story? You know anyone who was there? I do and we are being Lied to again – and lot’s of people are looking for the answers. More Questions few answers.

    Due Dilligence on facts before this country goes to HEXL

    • Tina says:

      People make fun of you Dewey because you claim to be “way out in front” but you never produce the so-called documents you say you have. What good has your being “out in front” done? what have you achieved? Do you offer an alternative system if the dems and reps were completely destroyed. No…you just go away for awhile. You’re arrogant. Most people don’t respond well to that.

      Parties are inanimate things. Ridding ourselves of the two parties would achieve nothing. We need to expose guilty persons and bring them to justice.

      Most of us on this blog love America. We participate here, discussing the news of the day, in an effort to raise awareness and educate.

      So what’s your superior alternative? Make your case. Or get your own blog.

  5. Tina says:

    The House Intelligence Committee and Fusion GPS have reached an agreement…Fusion will release bank records but they will be sealed.

    Of course they will. Yah dah, yah dah, yah, dah:

    The unknown aspect surrounding the dossier is the extent of the collaboration between the former Obama administration’s intelligence community (FBI, CIA, ODNI), the Clinton Campaign, Fusion GPS and Christopher Steele. There have been numerous reports that parts of the Steele Dossier was used by the Obama intelligence groups, specifically the FBI, to gain FISA warrants to spy on the campaign activity of Donald Trump. (See article for timeline of events – give it a read Chris)

    Shades of Benghazi where Hillary testified, but with her probable criminal cohorts in the room acting as her lawyers, and without any of them being placed under oath.

    See also the Daily Caller exposing undisclosed CNN ties to fusion GPS.

  6. Peggy says:

    From National Review. I have a feeling we’re going to be hearing a lot more about Mark Elias.

    “At every turn, Democrats get tangled in their own ‘collusion’ web.

    “On the dossier, let’s get this straight: There would be no dossier were it not for the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee. My own previous reluctance to finger the Clinton campaign has been proven wrong by the Post’s reporting. (And in a correction to its original story, the Post itself has noted that left-leaning Mother Jones reported in October 2016 that the compendium now known as the dossier was a Democrat-funded research effort.) On Friday evening, after we thought this column was put to bed, it was revealed that the Washington Free Beacon, a conservative publication, funded the original Fusion GPS project. As the Washington Examiner’s Byron York reported, the Free Beacon retained Fusion GPS to do research on several Republican candidates, not Donald Trump alone. The project had nothing to do with Russia or Christopher Steele. It ran from fall 2015 until Spring 2016, with the Free Beacon dropping it once Trump had the nomination sewn up. That is when the law firm of Perkins Coie, counsel for the Clinton campaign and the DNC, retained Fusion GPS. Only then did Fusion hire former British spy Christopher Steele. It was not until two months later that Steele completed his first “Company Intelligence Report,” dated June 21. That began what became the so-called dossier — 35 pages of Steele’s sensational investigative summaries. Some reporting (for example, by Business Insider’s Natasha Bertrand) suggests that parts of the dossier have been verified. But, Byron York notes, former FBI director James Comey has dismissively described it as “salacious and unverified.” Much of its significant content has been vigorously disputed. Whatever its quality, though, the dossier is a Democratic-party campaign and political-opposition screed, through and through.

    The Clinton campaign and the Democrats never wanted this to be known. That’s why they took such pains to insulate themselves: The Perkins Coie law firm and Steele were their layers of deniability. That’s not just a theory. Two well-regarded New York Times reporters, Maggie Haberman and Ken Vogel, have told their Twitter followers that people complicit in funding the dossier vigorously denied any involvement. And how’s this for Clintonian flair: During Senate Intelligence Committee testimony last month, Clinton campaign manager John Podesta insisted that he was unaware of any funding connection between the campaign, Fusion GPS, and the dossier. At that moment, sitting in silence next to Podesta was his lawyer, Marc Elias. If that name rings a bell, it is because Elias just happens to be the Perkins Coie lawyer who got the dossier rolling by hiring Fusion GPS in April 2016.

    • J. Soden says:

      I expect that Elias will be portrayed as the evil genius behind the Dodgy Dossier by all those involved in the payouts. Or as a scapegoat.
      And despite the denials by Blabbermouth-Schultz and $hrilLIARy, you don’t pay out $9 million unless you know what you’re paying FOR!
      Makes you wonder now about the Seth Rich murder, doesn’t it?

      And after a Friday leak of “charges to be filed” and a weekend of FNN’s repeating the story ad nauseum, gotta wonder if the charges will be for Felony Jaywalking. . . .

      • Peggy says:

        I’ve been thinking. What if the arrest isn’t for someone on Trump’s team? But, is instead for someone on Clinton’s or from the DNC, like Podesta or Ms. Debbie WS?

        I jumped to the conclusion that because Mueller is so compromised he’d go after Trump, but what if he’s actually doing is job and following the evidence and the evidence led to the DNC and not the RNC side?

        We’ll know tomorrow.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.